This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

More eyes would be appreciated over at Brittny Gastineau. Two editors continue to insert unsourced details about her appearance in the Bruno movie, including her comments on Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy. Since these comments are taken with no context whatsoever, it certainly seems like a case of WP:UNDUE and editors attempting to post "the truth" about her, as seen in edit summaries here [1] [2].

The article was recently semi-protected to prevent an IP from putting the material on the page, as soon as the protection was lifted, the editors reinserted it. I've tried to have a discussion on the talk page, but no one appears interested in discussing the notability or context of the quote. Other eyes and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker is the only one uninterested in discussing the notability or context of the quote, which is sourced because it is directly from the movie. The movie is the source. I have argued why it should be there with reasons to support my argument. He has simply stated that it should not be there and offers no reasons to support his opinion. Also, this information was on the article for an extended period of time until recently an editor started removing it. So I have actually been re-inserting previously presented information, not inserting new information. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The material is clearly being included to show Gastineau in a negative light, and as it is unsourced it must be removed. What sourcing from the movie does not tell us is how important this is in describing Gastineau. To me, it seems like undue weight to a minor event. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is somehow notable it should be covered by some WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this particular dispute, I think that the sourcing policy involving direct citations to creative works (movies, books, TV shows, etc) is often interpreted inappropriately. While such citations are appropriate for content involving in-universe aspects of fictional works, they are not appropriate for verifying "real-world" claims. They amount to no more than an editor's assertion that "I read it in a book" or "I saw it on TV," or something similar. An in-universe claim about a fictional character is quite unlikely to result in harm to any real person, so the usual cautions about original research and primary sourcing can be less restrictive; when a real person is involved; WP:BLP and the principles behind it require stronger, more reliable sourcing than an editor's assertion/recollection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) (copied by HW from earlier discussion of the article, above)

Glenn Beck was recently involved in a court case regarding the spoof website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Consensus has been to be cautious on this and it had yet to receive mention. I feel some mention is needed. A great article was created at Beck v. Eiland-Hall. User: Geoffrey.landis decided to add a substantial amount of info to the main Glenn Beck article [3]. I feel that it is given too much weight in relation to other aspects of the article. I trimmed it substantially but included the wikilink to the main article and kept the website ([4]) in. Geoffrey.landis reverted. Is this a concern BLP concern?Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue here, I don't see it. The facts of the case do not seem to be under any dispute, so I don't see any BLP violations of any sort in adding them to the article.

The only issue that I see raised is a claim that the section is too long (600 words added to a 4500 word article). I don't see how that is relevant to the BLP policy.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. Other sections have been trimmed down to not present balance issues. This has included things that received significantly more coverage than this case. For some time, there was consensus to not include and the reasoning was that it was simply tabloid material with a website that Wikipeida should not be inadvertently promoting. I disagree with those reasons but do feel that receiving an independent subsection seen predominantly next to the lead in the TOC and more weight than the other better covered events causes a concern. Since we have the other article, we can find the balance between a content fork and too much coverage easily. Your lack of attempting to find consensus and disregarding discussion is a problem. I would also recommend taking a look at the archives but the conversation has come up so many times it might be hard to follow.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Length): Length is not a BLP issue. If this is the issue, it does not belong here

("there was consensus to not include"): Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. At the time I added the material, the Talk:Glenn Beck discussion had four people commenting that the material should be included, and one person saying "I'm not sure if anything about this needs to be added to the article." (Indeed, there was also some discussion to the effect that the addition should be "minor", but that's not relevant to the BLP page. There absolutely was not a "consensus to not include.")

("your lack of attempting to find consensus") I'm not sure that "well, you started it" is an acceptable argument on Wikipedia, but let me point out that by deleting my text with no edit summary, I could just as easily accuse you of a "lack of attempt to find consensus." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there could have been a BLP issue if Beck simply had ignored the matter. Then, that website would have remained much more of a thing that somebody happened to make up one day, and would be of limited encyclopedic interest. But since Beck took active legal interest in the matter--and, in so doing, perfectly exemplified the Streisand effect--he has made the issue not only relevant to his biography, but familiar to the masses. Of course, there's a fine line between prominence and sensationalism, and the matter shouldn't be overstated. But since the prominence and/or sensationalism is largely a matter of Beck's own doing, it is biographically relevant and, I'd think, warrants at least a sentence or two--up to a paragraph, perhaps, but probably no more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good lord. Do we really need the huge Beck v. Eiland-Hall article? That was a blip on the radar, and is now adequately covered in the main Glenn Beck article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that may be a bit much. Although I feel that Beck is largely responsible for turning this into part of his biography, the spirit of BLP involves discretion on account of basic human decency, and I don't think it indicates that we should plaster "rape and murder" all over the place when the matter can be covered, sensibly and succinctly, in the bio article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link with short precis would be more than adequate. Too many BLPs are repositories of every factoid and analysis thereof under the sun. At some point, "too much detail" is a real problem on WP. Collect (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be more of a discussion that would be best done at the article's talk page. If issues cannot be resolved, at Talk:Glenn Beck, then dispute resolution in the form of WP:THIRD or WP:RFC would be appropriate, to deal with the matter of WP:WEIGHT. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Antwahn Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I came across some odd edits that have stood for about two months. Since WP:BLP is far beyond my capacity to understand (WP:TLDR) (note: don't see chilling effect; instead see supercooling), I really can't fix the edits.

167.102.162.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A joke edit to Herbert Spencer came from the IP address which I fixed. Looking at the Talk page of the IP, the edits emanating from there are from an official government agency, the edits represent state officials doing their job. Looking at the recent edit history of the IP address is where I came across the edits that struck me as a possible WP:BLP violation, but not ones that I'm in a position to correct if a violation; I know nothing of the LP nor why the edits were placed there. Per above, I'd rather not get involved in editing a BLP at this time.

—Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted this page per WP:BLP. There were no sources cited whatsoever, and numerous BLP violations. Crum375 (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP address has a .edu domain name, so it's an educational institution (probably a school); I've changed the template on the user talk page to clarify this. snigbrook (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the less ambiguous template. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could interested individuals watchlist Nidal Malik Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and review the article for likely BLP violations? Particularly the section Nidal Malik Hasan#Religious and ideological beliefs. Any and all help appreciated. Grsz¹¹ 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. It might as well be noted, too, that this article is up for deletion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:George Galloway (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) - Is this edit permissible? As far as I can see, it breaks several guidelines, including biographies of living people, verifiability, not using a talk page as a forum and others. I have removed it twice, but it has been restored. I am reluctant to remove it again, unless other editors accept my view that there should be no place for such abuse on an article talk page.RolandR 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit of a forum style opinionated comment, I would support removal or archive the thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the new users working on the Richmond rape article has moved his attention to the American Indian Public Charter School article, it is not a BLP but the new edits seem to be attacking a living person, a guy called Chavis. I tried to ask him to take care and another editor also did, but it seems to be continuing, the inserts do seem to be cited, but from opinion places and it seems to me and the other editor that comments are being chosen to present the living person in as negative a way as possible, if someone could have a look, I especially didn't like the blackie comment and now the suck your titties senario. Comment in regard to this can be found from me and the user, Kafzeil can be found on User_talk:Richmondian who is the new user who is making these edits.Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

can anyone offer assistance with a persistent wikihound? Richmondian (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In either case, it looks like far too much detail, even if covered in detail by WP:RS. A three sentence paragraph with the refs should be enough for those who are interested to follow. Also, if Chavis has any denials they should be included. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

the Little Richard article has been undergoing extensive editing lately, and is still in serious need of some good BLP editors to help keep it encyclopedic in tone, well sourced, etc. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor Ratel (talk · contribs) has written a reasonably large amount of negative material into the biography of the Australian Professor Ian Plimer's biography based on less than reliable sources.

1. A quote from an op-ed that Plimer is a "denialist poster-boy" has been added to the article's lead.
2. Plimer is said to have been a member of the NRSP, and the source given is a web archive (web.archive.org) dating to 2007. The page was subsequently deleted, I imagine after a number of these listed scientists complained.
3. There is quote mining to have the UK Guardian George Monbiot's op-ed name calling Plimer a "climate change denialist" in the following sentence Plimer challenged George Monbiot of The Guardian to a public debate on the issues covered in the book, after Monbiot criticised the book, calling Plimer a climate change denialist.[16] None of this is based on reliable sources. There is only one reliable source covering the Monbiot/Plimer confrontation, as far as I can see, but that source is pro-Plimer. I argue that the incident should either be dropped for insufficient coverage, or it should be based on reliable sources and an effort should be made to present Plimer's and Monbiot's actual arguments, rather than just the name calling.
4. A creationist Duane Gish is quoted in the article saying Gish accused [Plimer] of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life".[22] There is absolutely no need to include the view of a creationist here that Plimer is "disgusting".

There are some other problems and I think we're light years away from a proper encyclopaedic treatment of Plimer's life but I guess this could get things started.

See also Talk:Ian_Plimer#list_of_BLP_and_other_violations. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The "denialist poster boy" comes from one of Australia's most well known and respected journalists, Phillip Adams, writing for a RS, The Australian. Other well known people to call Plimer a denialist are George Monbiot of The Guardian and an ex-leader of one of Australia's political parties, so it's hardly an unusual claim and is suitable for inclusion, per wp:SPADE.
2. The Internet archive (archive.org) is impeccably correct and has never been impugned at RS/N. Its archives of the NRSP's site are accurate and show that Plimer was listed as an associate, and this is also stated at the well known climate site DeSmogBlog [5] (source not used in article).
3. Monbiot's appellation of Plimer is not "quote mining". Monbiot, who is far more notable than Plimer, used the word "denialist" in several articles about Plimer, even in the headlines such as: "This professor of denial" and "Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight" and "Why can't the champion of climate change denial face the music?". This IS from a reliable source, namely, Monbiot's column in The Guardian, and must be included in the bio since Plimer and Monbiot had an actual clash that has been documented on many sites on the web (see the Talk page for links).
4. Duane Gish's views of Plimer are most worthy of inclusion because Plimer wrote a book (Telling Lies for God) that has a whole chapter attacking Gish on a personal basis, calling him a liar and a fraud. Plimer should expect to see the responses of those he attacks quoted in his bio.

Editor Alex Harvey has been accused by others (not me) of forum shopping to get his way in his mission to defend and whitewash those who are part of the global warming denier cadre. He goes to noticeboards at the drop of a hat (I think this is the 4th time in 2 weeks). He refuses to wait for input from others on the Talk page, eschews RfCs in favor of noticeboards, and generally edits disruptively. ► RATEL ◄ 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the opinion in the lede, especially the denialist poster boy slur, I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks Off2riorob.
2. To add some clarification here, the internet archive is an archived copy of a page at a website (=WP:SPS) that was subsequently removed (I guess the reason being that some of those listed complained). It is therefore doubly unreliable. DeSmogBlog is, surprise, surprise, a blog.
3. Nothing to add.
4. Nothing to add.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also says he attacked various aspects of the Bible in one of his books. I noted on the talk page that this seems like unnecassarily provocative language. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been having a bit of a rest from this dispute but the issues haven't gone away. The article is still a terrible slur piece. And as one commenter has noted, for those that want to see Plimer brought down (and presumably burnt at the stake / locked up in a dungeon somewhere for his heretical climate change views) the article is actually having the reverse effect and serving as a page where Plimer's views are in an odd way promoted (I mean, not many readers are not so stupid as to not see the bias in this article, and once the bias is noted, one always wonders who is right and who is wrong). There is good cause for sensible editors on both sides of this dispute to help turn this article back into a neutral presentation of the facts.

The issue is not resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted edits from a PR person who was rewriting the article in the subject's favour, removing some negative (although I think correct) info and rewriting details of his entrepreneurial career using what looked like puffery to me, although I have very little experience of BLPs. I looked at the version I reverted back to and it did seem a bit negative, I wondered if it was giving undue weight to the negative points. I added a {pov-check} tag, but I wasn't sure what effect that has - does that bring it to anyone's attention? Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For an UK celebrity of his fame, that is a pretty terrible article. I've removed a lot of unreferenced stuff and trivia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An edit war is in progress over what is/is not a 'controversy' and the weight to be given to certain on-air statements she made. Article seemed to have achieved stability and consensus on these issues about two months ago, new editors have stirred things up. --CliffC (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have hidden a controversy that lacks any reliable secondary sources establishing it as a controversy (or in fact reliable secondary sources discussing it period) and left further explaination on the talk page why Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I can see, the current dispute is focused more on the so-called 'camel controversy'. I find it troubling that we have the POV language "Burnett launched an attack[6] on the Australian Prime Minister" cited to a video yet Burnett claims "her story was a 'deadpan joke.'" Was there an 'attack', and does the 'camel controversy' belong? Hoping for more admin eyes and comment on this article. --CliffC (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Werlé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone add the customary BLP template to the edit field of this page? Also, please could you add it to your watchlist given the ongoing legal dispute. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

YOu can add the edit notice by adding [[Category:Living people]] to the article. If we take away the navel gazing legal bit, isn't this guy only known for the one thing? I see an Afd in the near future. Kevin (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with expanding, but satisfies WP:GNG for the time being. Had Herr Werlé hired a decent legal team (or listened to them), none of this would have happened, as the English language article about the Walter Sedlmayr case has clear First Amendment protection. Talk about booting the ball into the back of your own net.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be creating an article on the back of a dispute with Wikipedia. We can't justify having having two sentences about the murder that cost him 15 years of his life purely to hang a paragraph about his spat with Wikipedia on it. Keep it on-topic. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Wolfgang Werlé. I have suggested a merger with Walter Sedlmayr. There is no intention to WP:COATRACK here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The parent already mentions his name, the sentence, the parole, and the subsequent dispute, so no merging necessary. Redirected as an otherwise duplicate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not create Wolfgang Werlé and have already agreed in principle to a merger. No need for edit warring here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Andrzejewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article was tagged for speedy deletion already but people, associated with the campaign no less, keep bringing it back and citing pro-Adam sources as unbiased sources. He is not a major figure yet, frankly, and the information on the 2010 Illinois Gubernatorial Campaign should be enough. He isnt famous enough to deserve a whole vanity page like this to himself. // 207.63.254.240 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue. If there is a notability issue, it should be resolved via the AfD route. There is no urgency, in any case. Crum375 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Willthereeverbeamorning is claiming to be the subject of the article and has blanked sourced content more than once. The content seems (to me, admittedly BLP inexperienced) not very controversial. I have attempted to contact the user on their talk with no result. I really do not want to revert again before more experienced editors can assess the situation. Thanks Tiderolls 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted that user's changes again and left a talk page message directing them to WP:BIOSELF. If they refuse to communicate we can take it further. – ukexpat (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the latest edit the user has made? The edit has removed several pieces of information which are well supported by references (or were - the references got nuked, too). I don't want to rollback again in case we're taking this seriously without a verification via OTRS. SMC (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and it's not acceptable. Willthereeverbeamorning (talk · contribs)'s edits essentially made the article non-compliant with BLP. The user seems to imply that Gill is not and never was married, while sources prove that she was married to Richmond as late as August 2009. One more thing: The user takes their name from Will There Ever Be a Morning, a fake autobiography written about Frances Farmer. Pending an OTRS verification, I am restoring the article and issuing a warning to refrain from further edit-warring to the article. decltype (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll keep it watched until (or should that be if) we find out more from OTRS. SMC (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor performance all around. When a questionably notable living person starts blanking their bio, consider helping them get it deleted, as opposed to furthering the torture. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

She is not of questionable notability, and has not requested deletion. A user operating an account claiming to be the subject of the article has blanked certain sections of it. decltype (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor performance all around? I will take this opportunity to disagree with your assessment. There have been multiple attempts to establish communication with the user. As I read the opinions expressed here and on the user's talk, no one is claiming that any content be retained without reservation. This situation could most likely be resolved in short order with the user's cooperation. Regards Tiderolls 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Roy Thomas Baker was not born in 1956. I knew RTB in the 70's, 80's. I was born in 1955 and he is at least 9 or ten years older than me. I'd say 1946 is more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Silliness (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since according to one of the sources he had "vast experience" in 1975, I think you must be right -- I went ahead and removed that information. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted by Ukgovorg (talk · contribs), a new account that has not made any other edits. I am going to revert back and put a query on the editor's talk page, but I won't get into an edit war over this. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the David Michael Jacobs page, Jacobs is notable as a prominent Ufologist. I have removed a reference to his opinion on how research should be conducted regarding Marion apparitions, which is not part of the field of Ufology. I put a notice on the discussion page about this. User:Sift&Winnow has reinstated it a number of times, putting a note in the edit log that it was for "balance". I then put a note on the User:Sift&Winnow talk page saying that a biography article should be restricted to their views on the area they are notable in. User:Sift&Winnow replied that it should be a well-rounded article on the person, encompassing his life, his work, his views, etc. My understanding is that a biography page is not a place to include the person's views on any number of unrelated areas. What is the right thing to do here? Ocean33 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on the talk page. The section in question seems to be more pointless than BLPish. I don't think that mentioning his opinion on this could create any problems for him, but I also don't think anyone would care. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone ahead and removed the sectionOcean33 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(Excuse me if asking a general question is inappropriate here, I'm not completely familiar with what goes where in terms of discussion.)

Situation: two people editing a BLP have "different" understandings of the implications of NPOV

Question: Would it be reasonable to have them come to this noticeboard (or NPOVN?) to clarify their understandings (get on the same page)?

NOTE: The reason I ask this here is because it has seemed to me that NPOV in a BLP is in some way more stringent(?), subtly different(?). Proofreader77 (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that NPOV issues in a BLP could brought to people's attention here. No problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Awlaki is a very controversial person, but BLP still applies. An editor is trying to use extremist sources including WorldNetDaily to make various claims. Some claims are relatively minor (his birthplace) but others are defamatory.[7] Please watch for other defamatory statements in the article, which is undergoing a period of heavy editing. // ~YellowFives 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

One statement was based on a book published by WorldNetDaily, so I've removed that. I also removed an alleged quote from a no-longer extant blog from a NEFA Foundation pdf, [8] as I don't see how that can be a reliable source for this either. Whatever we think of the subject we still need to apply the same BLP policy. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this at WP:RSN. While politicized sources such as WND may be cited with attribution in some articles, the ultimate source for one of the cites in question was a keynote address by a DHS undersecretary at a government-sponsored symposium, and a transcript of the speech is at DHS.gov, and I've suggested that be used instead. As an aside, I'm not familiar with NEFA, but I'm not sure why you'd consider it unreliable. Perhaps NEFA should be discussed on RSN as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would add that simply because someone has co-authored a book published by WorldNetDaily that certainly doesn't make all of that authors works unreliable, especially when published by sources that meet WP:RS. Time and again YellowFives or some other editor has cited and/or removed the book 'Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington, claiming it does not meet WP:RS, but it is published by Thomas Nelson Inc. and easily passes WP:RS. I'm not sure if this naivete or what, but unless I'm missing something, I think saying that a book is published by WorldNetDaily when it is in fact published by Thomas Nelson Inc. is criminal. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Noriko Sakai is a blatant BLP issue. It says nothing about any part of her life except the most recent, which includes a drug scandal. This scandal material has been lovingly worked on in excruciating detail and inserted by User:Groink, who despite being on Wikipedia for more than 4 years, sees nothing wrong with a BLP consisting only of a scandal, which incidentally, is not the reason she's famous. The reason the scandal even has any legs in the news media is given her pop icon status in Japan. The incongruous nature of this BLP has been pointed by several on the talk page, but those people don't seem to understand that there are Wikipedia procedures in place to take care of such issues. Which is why I am posting this here. Regards, --208.120.179.102 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as the material is neutral, reliably sourced, and unoriginal, it's not a BLP violation. All that's left is a question of significance. If she is famous for far more than a drug scandal, the best way to handle that is to add that other information. But in the meantime, no harm is really being done because the material is, once again, neutral, realiable, and unoriginal (as for adding that other information, you could start by translating from the Chinese and Japanese articles, which contain some non-drug related content that isn't in the English article). Otherwise, the proper course of action is dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a major problem in this article. WP is not a supermarket gossip paper. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just hard to see the content as supermarket gossip if it's as well sourced as it appears to be (i'm not familiar with Japanese newspapers). If you feel the content is just gossip, you're free to take care of it with the normal processes, as you already know. But the principle of BLP is "do no harm." Reporting reliably sourced content does no harm when it is done neutrally and without inserting original research. The only argument available that's available to say it does actually do harm, and thus is a BLP violation is to claim insignificance of the content (in the NPOV sense of the term), but that's a fairly contentious thing to do, and my not afford the same protections as you get removing more obvious BLP violations (namely the exemption from 3RR). I'm not saying the content should stay there, merely that it need not be removed with extreme prejudice. I agree that it should be cut down, at the very least. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the choice of topic than the sourcing. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a (former?) editor complaining about this page Sol Wachtler at User talk:Jimbo Wales#What the hell happened to BLP? [9]. The complaints are rather non specific and I didn't notice any real problems but welcome others to take a look Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On Wachtler, pointing out that "The poor guy is 79 frippin' years old" doesn't erase his criminal acts, which were well documented in The New York Times and other media at the time. IMO our article is closer to a whitewash of the judge (who has indeed edited it in the past) than to any BLP violation. As to the "missing" ham-sandwich quote, an experienced editor removed it back in May with edit summary "Wachtler was repeating a dictum much older than himself". --CliffC (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported in the blogosphere that Derek B has died - so far I can't find a reliable source. Another editor says his Facebook page states his death, but I can't find this either. Unsure how to proceed.86.159.192.98 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't find any sign that this is true, based on reliable sources. I've removed the claims and have semi protected the article, since multiple IPs appear involved. I suggest other editors keep an eye on this.--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the IPs, removing the claims. I also removed a dead link (the second one) but this has of course now been reinstated. 86.159.192.98 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you were, thank you. And reporting it here was exactly the right thing to do. Sorry for removing your improvement, but it was important to act fast. I'll remove the dead link shortly. You may wish to register, and then in a couple of days etc you would be able to do such things yourself.--Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a banner to put on the page to say that until its sourced, it can't go in as people are still trying to change it? 86.159.192.98 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is now sourced to a BBC report of his death. – ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Abbywinters.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - questionably sourced (poss. also ((cherrypicked))/((partisan))), verification issues, etc.

An editor asked at the GAN pages how the categories there work, as they were thinking of nominating "Abbywinters.com" for GA assessment. The part about how to nominate can easily be handled there. Having looked at the article, I've brought up the article here because of concerns it has potentially defamatory material about a living person.

The article is not a bio, however includes content about specific individuals. I appreciate applying BLP policy to non-BLP articles is questioned on occasion, though the first sentence of the policy (and emphasis in it) shows why it's relevant to content in this article.

Concerns: questionable sourcing such as forums anybody can edit, blogs; possibly coatracking; vagueness presented as clear statements; reader comments themselves or mere reference to them by sources; over reliance on material from advocacy or lobbyist sources like disaffected former model/employee blog entries or tabloid pieces repeating & citing on them along with a comment; unsupported claims; two successive controversy/criticism sections... You get the idea.

I've tagged it with ((BLP dispute)). If others here could assist that would be good. Additionally, it would be good if some people would add it to their watchlist to keep an eye on. I appreciate an article on an adult website might not be something everybody wants to have in their contribs. However, everyone is entitled to fair treatment irrespective of their profession. Thanks all. –Whitehorse1 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• An editor removed the tag with a "sofixit" & there's the talkpage comment. I undid the removal, pointing here. The talkpage shows many concerns've been raised about weight, sourcing, blp/pov, over time. Things like 4+ references to support single sentences or points, which may themselves not support the claims or meet reliable source requirements, make it more difficult and mean closer attention is required. –Whitehorse1 00:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done some cleaning up of the poorly sourced bits. Kevin (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. I think you did a great job. In my view, improvements made to the article merit taking off the ((BLPdispute)) tag, so I've removed it. –Whitehorse1 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I believe this is OK now. The contentious material has been trimmed back severely and seems less unbalanced and less potentially libellous. I'm going to look for Schools Project or other project/guideline material which gives guidance on "news/scandal stuff vs. the article's real subject", and may cut it further or entirely if a guideline seems to suggest it; or I may just leave it if that seems appropriate for the moment. Thanks for the help with this. DBaK (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

.

Quintin Kynaston School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about this edit which seems to sail close to the wind in turning allegations into facts and introducing a bit of synthesis to support the "thieving" wording. I am not sure, also, if it is undue weight. I'd be very grateful for advice. DBaK (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, it's a bit of a storm in a teacup, a teacher tried to get his children into the best school he could..really! I'll keep my eye on follow up stories and as soon as it dies down, or any investigation is over it could be trimmed a bit more. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I very much appreciate the input. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article wishes to correct errors, and add further content about himself. I've been plenty involved, first with warning him for copyright infringement and engaging in further discussion [10], then trying to help with the article and sources [11], but think it's time I step aside. Others' thoughts/efforts much appreciated. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've offered to review things that he takes to the talk page on a point-by-point basis. 99, you're doing an amazing job, please don't step aside unless you need to. Ray^Talk 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Numerous IPs have been warring over the addition of some particularly contentious claims to this article. The discussion on the talk page involves New Zealand law and its applicability to Wikipedia. I reverted the latest edit as adding unsourced negative claims to a BLP, but examining the history it looks a bit more complicated than that. Someone more experienced with such matters should look into this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. The source given does not support the claim, and as a result of the continual re-insertion I have semi-protected. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this as I live in NZ but as I mentioned in the talk page, I suggest any editor from NZ particularly those who's account is linked to their real life identity or editing without an account considers carefully their involvement since they are likely to be liable if breaching suppression orders. Also if it's true whatever's being discussed here has no sources I would personally recommend it be deleted or perhaps even oversighted Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

some unfortunately inflammatory posts are being made to the Talk:Pete Townshend page - a few different sections of the talk page are involved, but diffs like this, this, this and this seem to include possible violations of WP:BLP#Non-article space. the discussion has been messy, and included an RfC that still needs formal closing, and it really needs someone uninvolved to step in and help keep the discussion constructive. thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Following a communication to the Wikimedia Foundation (OTRS:2009111010000998), I have removed a link from this article that seems inconsistent with Wikipedia:BLP#External links and Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people. For transparency, I mention it here.

The link in question is to an opinion piece in a blog that evidently serves to compile the criticism of the blog maintainer (a notable writer himself, Daniel Pipes)) against the subject. I agree with the correspondent that the link is inappropriate. We are cautioned to "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material", and WP:V also indicates that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." WP:BLP says, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links." WP:EL adds, "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Henry was recently considered by Irish TV to have cheated in order to secure France's passage into the 2010 FIFA World Cup; extra eyes on Thierry Henry, 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA), France national football team, and related articles would be welcome for the next couple of days. The Henry article has already been semiprotected. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now full protected until things calm down. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the entry on Kane Waselenchuk, a Canadian born sportsman, who is the #1 racquetball player in the world. He was suspended from the sport for two years due to a positive drug test, and I included that information in the entry with a reference to a Globe and Mail (a national newspaper in Canada) on-line article indicating as much. Another editor has repeatedly - I think it's 10 times now - deleted this information. The other editor believes it's unnecessary to mention anything about the positive drug test and suspension, but I believe it is relevant, because it impacted his sports career, which is what he's known for. What do others think of this situation? Trb333 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just glancing, but it certainly appears to be properly sourced and extremely relevant to the article. The whole thing could use a good scrubbing, but since the article is mostly about his career, the sourced information about the positive test and suspension is relevant to those years of his career. It would be nice if the IP would comment on the talk page, but "unnecessary" isn't much of a reason for excluding properly sourced information. Dayewalker (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

While not strictly necessary, it may be helpful to include a different ref in addition to the existing one Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added a reference to the press release from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport that announced Waselenchuk's positive test and its consequences. It also has a quote from the athlete, so is perhaps a better reference than the G&M article. Trb333 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcin Kobierski is accused of doping (sport) in the article about Michał Gajownik. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the fact that John Fogerty is called a "dick" and his "dickishness" is discussed in the respective article's discussion page. Apart from the fact, that these discussions do not add any substantial suggestion to the article's editing, they are insulting. I deleted the "dicks", but someone took great care to insert all of them again. (Owen Ogletree (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree and will blank that section per WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is the use of the word "dick". Personally, I agree that its use is inappropriate and I would fully support changing it to a better word (if such a move is allowable). However, the issue they raise - a negative facet of Fogerty's character that has been commented on at length by ex band mates - should NOT be glossed over quite so quickly. The word is wrong. The question is not. JMO. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The word is wrong, that is the main point. I'm not interested in having someone's opinions deleted. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that discussion boards here are for discussing entries, not for discussing people. (Owen Ogletree (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Discussions of ways to improve the article, for example discussions of whether to add comments from his ex band mates would be okay. Discussions of editors opinions however are not, as they never are. That discussion was completely inappropriate not just because of the use of the word 'dick' but because it was basically just a discussion of how editors felt about the subject. Talk pages are not for editor or reader questions or opinions about the subject, but solely for discussing ways to improve the article. In some cases, a question may reveal shortcomings in the article, but in this case I don't see that happening in the discussion nor from the question. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a disagreement about categories relating to his pending 1978 charges concerning the sexual assualt case. The policy on biographies of living persons states:

"For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

I agree the incident is relevant to his notability. The incident has been published by reliable third parties. I do not agree he has ever been convicted, the article never uses the word convicted and I can not find any reliable sources that say he has been convicted. The article does say "Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending." That means to me, the case was never closed, so no conviction. Based on this information those categories do not belong in the article. The main argument for inclusion is that he pled guilty and that the consensus on the talk page is that the categories should be included. A discussion has been started on the talk page and I think some outside editors looking at this would be beneficial. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a guilty plea and a conviction, he fled previous to sentence, this is simply hair splitting, there was a detailed discussion regarding this issue, and stat rapist was supported and considered to be the best solution to an issue that had been responsible for numerous edit wars, from people wanting to and repeatedly adding rapist cats and kiddie fiddler cats, child molestation cats and so on, after the stat rapist cat was included there was a lot of stability in the cats, and its removal will leave a void that an element will again continually attempt to insert cats like rapist, this has been stable and has support amongst the Polanski editors. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Legally speaking, pleading guilty and being convicted by a jury are the same thing, the former just obviates the need for a jury trial. Therefore, he has a criminal record with a conviction noted thereon. This clearly supports the inclusion of those categories and there is no WP:BLP issue with respect thereto. And yes, IAAL. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two things:

• The worry that people will insert more inappropriate categories is not a reason to insert this one. An anon got blocked just yesterday for edit warring over the French rapists category.
• This shouldn't be about Polanski, but policy. Under policy, should we consider those who have pled guilty but not been sentenced as the equivalent of those who have been convicted? Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is more than enough, he pled guilty and was found guilty, just that then he ran away. So he is guilty as pled..The stat cat has been stable for weeks, there is no issue with it, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Gamaliel's question, Under policy, should we consider those who have pled guilty but not been sentenced as the equivalent of those who have been convicted?, my answer is yes, we should. It is exactly the same situation as someone who is found guilty by a jury but escapes from custody before sentencing.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• The sentencing phase is a completely separate phase of the trial and takes place after a successful conviction. WVBluefield (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page about if a statement by a former employee who is filing a lawsuit should be included in the article. I am arguing that it shouldn't since it reflects on other current and former employees. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What sources report the statement? If it's just a court filing, then we should not use it. If, on the other hand, the lawsuit has been covered by independent, reliable third-party sources, then some coverage along the lines used in those independent sources would be reasonable from a WP:BLP perspective, I would think. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I also brought up the issue of giving undue weight to one person's statement. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Dufour. This is one minor and to date insignificant event and does not merit inclusion. WVBluefield (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

George's recent conviction for offences against children was front page news in the UK, but per WP:BLP1E is it inappropriate to have an article on this subject? Should the article be renamed? Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it's prodded for deletion. WP is not a police blotter. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It got prodded not long after I raised this which answers my question as WP:BLP1E is given as the reason. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous version 1

Current Version 2

I am getting tired of this. So the problem is that both versions are fine, but an editor who hasn't edited this specific article since practically 2007 and has changed the article back to its old version 3 4 and to their style. Myself and some other editors have contributed a lot to that article and the editor, Oncamera, has disregard my proposal of reverting the article back to it's previous version and then discussing it from there. Instead she reverted it back and then wants me discuss it with her. Now I am not saying the content she did was wrong, but User: Oncamera did not discuss any of this with me. I have been contributing to this article since 2008 5. And no one seems to be listening to what I my point of it is. It doesn't matter what her contributions are if they're are people submitting more work that you or have dedicated a lot to an article. A matter of such a change should be discussed with those major contributing editors. While I was blocked at that time she went in and changed the entirety of this article. I am not claiming ownership, it is hard for me to understand the rules yes, but but you are not suppose to change an entire article especially when the people who care the most about it are either gone or blocked. In short I feel that the article should stay as it was on November 16 6 then we should all re-discuss it because what Oncamera did actually suffices as disruptive editing. She disregarded my opinion on the matter and forced her own. InkHeart♥ 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing RfC regarding this article here--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please check my work on this article to ensure I am not violating WP:BLP with my additions about Rep Daryl Metcalfe? If neccessary, I can find additional sourcing or reword the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's strictly a BLP violation, but Metcalfe isn't a US Rep/member of Congress, and one letter to the editor isn't really enough to hang a criticism discussion on. I don't see the content as significant enough to include in the article at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the title, removed the letter, and found a new source that specifically is Operations FREE criticizing him. Please check again for me if you don't mind, I am not strong in BLP policy knowledge.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary Feik is a pioneer in aviation. Someone has written totally untrue and salacious remarks about her life in wikipedia How do we get these removed??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizard10 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone has cleaned up the Mary Feik article. Thank you for the report! NW (Talk) 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Jkaharper has added information on the death of Olivia Patricia Thomas based on the following reference: [12]. In case you don't want to sign up for it, the text of the message is as follows:

Greetings,

Louis Epstein is reporting that a 114-year-old woman died today (name withheld until family notified). I'm not going to name names, but it's almost certainly a woman from New York.

Regards Moderator

Reliability of the source aside (that is being discussed at the top of this page), not only does this source not explicitly identify the individual, but her own family has apparently not even been notified of her death... I don't think it's likely that the family would learn of it this way, but it would be absolutely horrible if they did, particularly as it hasn't yet been absolutely confirmed. I'm bringing this up to add extra attention so that I don't have to worry about breaking any reversion rules if the information is re-instated. Cheers, CP 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing this newspaper is good enough. So unfortunately it doesn't seem to be wrong. But yes, good call, sourcing a death by inferring it from a post on Yahoo is not best practice, to put it mildly. Misarxist (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems confirmed now. I was more worried that it was posted here before the family was notified than anything else. Cheers, CP 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect your concern and sensitivity, but do you really think the relatives of someone 114 years old would be all that shocked that they kicked the bucket????? Regisfugit (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not our place to try and understand how the relatives of this person might react. As with all BLPs, information of this nature must be sourced, without question. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be arguably covered by Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. And yes, Regisfugit, they might be, since she was doing fairly well (at least for a 114 year old) at her death. More to the point, however, a family should be notified about a death by an appropriate authority who can ease grief, not a rumour (true or otherwise) on a yahoo group posted to Wikipedia. In any case, I think that this can be marked as resolved now, although I'm not certain if it's kosher to do it myself. Cheers, CP 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of the source proven correct once again, note I didn't name names. Neither did I add the updates to Wikipedia. I agree that the Wikipedes should have waited for confirmation. That said, in this case Ms. Thomas had no children and, to be honest, no close family members, either. There were some friends/former neighbors, however.Ryoung122 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove BIRTH day and YEAR date from my biog page -- BOTH.

Thank you.

David Anthony Kraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.1.245 (talk • contribs)

If you have an issue with an article about yourself, please see WP:OTRS. Grsz¹¹ 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed as per request. This isn't critical per the article. Please check OTRS as above for other issues concerned with this .(olive (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Just as a matter of interest, we just take User:71.30.1.245's word for it that they are the subject of the article? – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Anyway, while we're at it, would somebody please change the picture on my article? I mean, being perfect and all, I clearly have a more symmetrical face than that. Sincerely, Jesus Christ. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, the David Anthony Kraft article states that he lives in Clayton, Georgia; the IP 71.30.1.245 traces to a nearby county (perhaps where the ISP is located). While this doesn't prove anything, it suggests to me a relatively high likelihood that the anon actually is who he says he is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway the date is not needed, unless you want to send him a birthday card. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we normally keep years. OTRS not here is the proper way to handle this. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article has no reliable References or Critical Content. It feels more like an Advertisement of the Artist himself. 01:42, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC) Homem-Christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.196.11 (talk)

She is a TV journalist. I think undue weight is being given to a couple of her statements, which were probably poorly expressed. Certainly mistakes on her part but not so important that they need to take up half the article. A larger issue is the chilling effect reporters might feel if they dare to say anything controversial, or even speak as a "devil's advocate" which she seemed to have been doing in the Chinese toys controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was totally excessive, I watched the videos, very poor citations and very pov writing, I have taken the wack hammer to it, I think it is a lot better now, I am not being funny but pov pushing like that by an ip really makes me annoyed. I expect he will come back to revert, I will keep it watched, if someone else would also as it really should not be returned to the previous state. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Carly Smithson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Cold465 has repeatedly added information about a fansite controversy that is not notable and that Smithson is not directly involved with. Cold465 has made these edits numerous times despite the objections of other editors, does not really respond to these concerns on their talk page, does not discuss the issue on the discussion page and even moved the whole article to Carly'sAngels Controversy, [13]. Cold465 in their last edit even admits that the controversy has nothing to do with Smithson, [14]. // Aspects (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be gone. Anyway the article focuses too much on her on American Idol, rather than her whole career as an artist. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sulaiman Al-Fahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like to request some help with this article. We've got an on-going, low level (a couple reverts per day) edit war between Jessica Hoy and a number of other semi-interested editors. I initially reverted Jessica Hoy's edits, as they were unsourced and POV (in the overly positive direction). In discussions with her(?) on our respective talk pages, it appears that the lack of sources and the poor style are mostly a result of being new to the editing process, and having a hard time with the distinction between positive POV and neutral edits. If her edits weren't constructive, I'd revert, but they do add useful information (the original information was a few years out of date), and she is correct in that the initial tone of the article was somewhat overly biased in the negative direction. I was hoping I could get some assistance cleaning up both the prose and the sources for her edits to meet acceptable quality and NPOV standards. Any interested editors who could contribute to fixing up her version of the article to fix POV issues while keeping the new, useful information would be welcomed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A note: I have rewritten a section or two in neutral POV, and Jessica was more than willing to keep the version that indicated negative things (a suspect claim to the title "Dr.") without overemphasizing them. Good faith is not just assumed but demonstrated on her part, but her skills as an editor are such that assistance is required. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel has claimed that it is a violation of BLP to use a defamatory statement on a talk page as an example in a discussion of what is or isn't a violation. E.g. in a discussion of whether the statement "Michael Savage is a hypocrite" is or isn't a violation, Gamaliel claims that merely giving the statement as an example is itself a violation; in other words, he claims that if accusing someone of hypocrisy in an article would be a BLP violation then I have just violated it right here. I claim that such a rule is absurd, and amounts to censorship, since it stifles debate about the policy and its application. -- Zsero (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating my response below, whether or not it is a BLP violation is somewhat beside the point here. The talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, and ad hominem attacks are unlikely to serve that purpose. If your point is to discuss some point of policy, there should be no need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Discuss the policy, not the person, and BLP won't apply. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw some articles mentioning that the persons dropped out of school. The information was sourced. However, the information is negative. Should this be censored out so that we don't embarrass them? Part of BLP is not to smear someone although the rules are not written to say exactly that. See Renee Russo and David Thomas. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dropping out of school is not necessarily an embarrassing piece of information. Reliably-sourced information individual's education is a reasonable part a complete biographical article, and that includes whether or not a person has dropped out of school. That said, there may be issues of WP:WEIGHT, as well as questions about how the information should be presented in a neutral manner. In other words, an article that consists solely of

Joe Bloggs is a high school dropout from North Carolina.

isn't good. On the other hand, a biography might legitimately contain,

Bloggs married his high-school sweetheart Janet in 1972, at the age of sixteen. A year later, Bloggs dropped out of high school to found FooCorp, his first software enterprise....

See the difference? If you have specfic questions about the articles you've mentioned or illustrative diffs which you'd like to relate, that would be helpful. It's sometimes difficult or misleading to discuss these issues using only generalities. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question was posed because these biographies might have a category created called high school dropouts or notable people who did not complete high school. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would say you should propose the categories for deletion. "Dropout" certainly does have negative connotations; at the least, a category containing that should be renamed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The "Controversies" section has been removed, and no effort has been made to reinsert it. So I think it is OK for the time being. JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on the CNBC broadcaster urgently needs attention. It has a "Controversies" section that is far too large for an article of this size, and an editor insists on reverting a particularly poorly sourced subsection that is especially inflammatory. See [15].--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, thanks to User:Nuclear Warfare, who correctly deleted the "controversies" section. Doesn't seem to be any effort to revert, so this can be marked "resolved." Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I seem to be the only admin on scene at this one, and I am literally right in the middle of exam week, so it's a bad time for me to be monitoring anything live. Essentially the issue here is that the Premier of South Australia is being accused by a woman in a paid interview of having an affair with her (Clinton-style), and an editor sympathetic to his political opposition is adding tabloidish stuff to it, including the names of all parties. It seems to be almost a textbook case for demonstrating the 3rd para of BLP in action.

Furthermore, my understanding of BLP policy, especially given the likelihood the media agencies who reported this will end up in the courts and perhaps for good reason, is that the woman and her ex-husband should not be named per "Presumption in favor of privacy". If someone could watchlist it and keep an eye on it, I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumption in favor or privacy should not apply here since she gave a public interview. Will add to watchlist since some of these edits look in any event problematic. Good luck with exams. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Several editors are edit warring in an attempt to include material from Weblogs into the article, see this edit for details: [16]. WVBluefield (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned both you and the other editor of WP:3RR, please let it settle until an uninvolved 3rd editor can help find consensus in line with WP:BLP. It's better to avoid a block so you can partake in the discussion than to be blocked and have no voice.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have assisted in removing the offending material. WVBluefield (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotional article from journalist himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.156.148 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This arises out of the same discussin as the previous item, but is a separate issue, so I'm putting it in a separate section: User:Gamaliel claims that calling someone an idiot is a BLP violation (but, apparently, that calling someone a hypocrite is not). It is clear to me that he is wrong. Defamation, by definition, is restricted to statements of fact; pure expressions of opinion, no matter how unfounded, cannot be defamatory. "John Smith is a thief" is defamatory; "John Smith is an idiot" is not and cannot be defamatory. BLP is explicitly about protecting people from defamation; that's clear from WP:BLP#Rationale. Thus saying (on a talk page, rather than in an article) that "John Smith is an idiot" cannot be a BLP violation, and it is against the rules to edit it out, let alone to threaten someone with blocking for writing it in the first place. -- Zsero (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone an idiot is neither informative nor constructive. Talk pages are for talk related to improving the article, and personal statements of opinion are not generally helpful to improving the article. Even if it wasn't a BLP violation, it's still a violation of WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "idiot" is also an old quasi-medical term. So to call a public figure an idiot, you would have to prove that their IQ is below a certain level. That would be hard to do. Now, I realized that Glenn Beck has written a book labeling people he doesn't like as "idiots", but he is not bound by wikipedia standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I considered noting that in my original reply, but decided against it. It wouldn't improve the situation if he substituted "doofus" (a non-technical slang term from what I can tell) for "idiot". :-) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero's claim is that calling someone an idiot is not a BLP violation because it's opinion rather than fact. Either way, it's O.R. and it's irrelevant. It's also uncivil when directed towards another editor. And the "censorship" cry would be typical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Zsero is currently on a short block and cannot respond here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel's response to the conversation seems a bit absurd, though. Zsero was going off-topic, clearly, but it was also clearly opinion. It seems particularly ridiculous to block someone for comments clearly intended to by hypothetical, and therefore far from BLP violations. A stiff reminder to get back on-topic, and possibly adding a template closing the section, would probably have been far more productive. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted. I hadn't even looked at the exact edits; I was answering the problem as stated here. The history does seem to indicate that Gamaliel warned him several times and suggested he take his concerns here, and the edits violate a number of other guidelines beyond BLP, e.g. WP:3RR, WP:POINT. It would probably be best to unblock and take this to dispute resolution. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or we could let the short block give him some time to cool down and reconsider his approach. Mattnad (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While I feel this issue has largely be sufficently dealt with, I should point out that calling someone an idiot if unsourced or poorly sourced is indeed a BLP violation (not the most serious one perhaps, but a violation). If you are under the impression something must be defamation to be a BLP violation you're mistaken I suggest you read the actual policy. Defamation (and derived words) is only mentioned 3 times, libel 2-4 times depending on how you count and slander not at all. This isn't an accident. BLP goes beyond what constitutes defamation/libel/slander. Calling someone a hypocrite is similarly likely a BLP violation if poorly sourced. If this relates to a talk page, as others have said it isn't appropriate for many reasons. Editor opinions of a subject of course are generally unwelcome on wikipedia particularly when they are negative views on a living person. Personally I may not normally remove such comments nor advocate their removal in most circumstances. But if someone does feel it's necessary I would support such actions and in any case someone who makes such comments has little defence for them. If someone make such inappropriate comments and is repeatedly warned but continues, a short block would seem justified. Edit: From a brief look at the article talk page the only person who called anyone a hypocrite appears to be Zsero him/herself. There was some discussion about whether it was appropriate to mention sources called Michael Savage a hypocrite which is obviously appropriate but that was all. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, when it's a personal opinion, as it was in this case. The purpose of BLP is to protect living people from the insertion of false/misleading material as best we can. What is clearly a personal opinion on a talk page would not fall under that purpose, as it's not going to be personally damaging for some random person on the internet to consider them a "ratbag" or "idiot." It's disruptive to WP, but does not fall under the scope of WP:BLP. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally damaging perhaps not. But potentially offensive and annoying to the subjects? Perhaps yes, particularly for a fairly unknown person and if the talk page is full of disparaging opinions. Yes this may not be the case here (I believe the people called idiots were journalists so they're probably somewhat used to people calling them idiots and it was only one user), but it doesn't change the fact that offensive comments and discussions about living people are particularly unwelcome and a BLP violation (even if not the most serious violation). And this isn't solely my opinion, this issue has came up on the noticeboard before and the general consensus is personal opinions about living people are an unwelcome BLP violation and should generally be removed if they provide nothing constructive to improve the article. Incidentally, you are mistaken that the sole purpose of BLP is to protect living people from the insertion of false or misleading info. In fact BLP also deals with privacy violations and information that is true but is of insufficient relevance to be mention at all or perhaps should be mention but not given much prominence. In some cases, you could argue the the way the information is presented may give a misleading impression of the person (but of course you could also argue the same thing if the talk page is full of people saying X is an idiot/ratbag/hypocrite/whatever) but the concern here is beyond simply given a misleading impression. Remember an important principle of BLP is to consider the possibility of harm and yes the is a small possibility of harm when talk pages are used to air editor opinions on living people. This is something many forums have no problem with but it's not something acceptable on wikipedia and in the case of BLPs, particularly so and BLP is one of the reasons. Just to reemphasise what I've already said, I don't believe this is a particularly serious BLP violation nor even something which has to be dealt with on BLP/N in fact, in most cases random editors opinions are not (although they should still usually be removed) but if you ask the technical question 'is this a BLP violation' the only answer can be yes. There are of course plenty of BLP violations, even on articles, which aren't really that big a deal, even calling people idiots in articles would often fall into that category, User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem has a good essay on this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So now BLP is supposed to protect an article subject from annoyance and offense? I seem to recall the whole point is to avoid undue harm. I see nothing in BLP policy or Doc glasgow's excellent work to suggest such an expansion. When the policy was developed to address harm, particularly serious harm, why are we trivializing it by saying it now applies to annoyances?

If a talk page is full of disparaging comments, then there is an entirely different problem with off-topic conversation (WP:FORUM) and disruptive behavior. I've never said the behavior should be allowed, only that a more appropriate policy should be applied. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Over the past couple of months, several editors have raised concerns on this article’s talk page that the article is unbalanced and not reliably sourced, but a few users (particularly user:Ramdrake) seem determined not to allow the article to be changed. (Looking at the article’s history is a good way to get a sense of this.) Since Ramdrake has been immediately reverting the edits of other users who tried to change this aspect of the article, I’d rather not get involved in another edit war over this; it seems more appropriate to just post about it here.

This article was brought up on this noticeboard last month here, but this particular issue about it doesn’t appear to have been dealt with. I’d like it if someone could take a look at it now. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a casual reading of the article shows it is heavily biased against the subject. This might be fair since his ideas seem to be really out there. It might be better to have a much shorter article, briefly explaining his work and then saying it is rejected by most others in the field. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, his theories are pretty unpopular, although there are also some prominent biologists and psychologists who’ve been supportive of them. The article mentions two of them—E.O. Wilson and Hans Eysenck—and there’s also Linda Gottfredson and Arthur Jensen. Papers he’s written are also consistently published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, so his work isn’t obviously unscientific the way something like creationism is.

Does how unpopular his ideas are make a difference for the article, though? This isn’t an article about his evolutionary psychology theories; it’s a biography. WP:BLP has some specific guidelines about not allowing biographies of living people to be overtly slanted in a negative manner. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody have an answer to this? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism does appear to be supported by references (forgive me, I didn't check every one manually), so the primary gripe here is about weight, correct? Have you attempted to discuss this on the article talk page? I don't see any posts by you there. Try and discuss the changes. If, and *only* if, you are unable to reach a consensus you can bring this to dispute resolution. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the issue of weight, there’s also the question of whether some of its sources can be considered reliable. Several parts of the article are cited to blogs, or to material that was self-published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

WP:BLP states, “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” As I stated before, when this has been done in the past, the user Ramdrake immediately reverted the edits in question. Most of the concerns that I would raise about this on the talk page are concerns that other users have raised there already, which doesn’t appear to have solved anything. Since there’s nothing I could attempt with this article that others haven’t attempted already, I think the only appropriate course of action at this point is to bring it up here.

I’m reluctant to seek dispute resolution with this user on the Rushton article because I’m already involved in a mediation case with him on another article, and I don’t want to be accused of wikihounding him. Isn’t it possible to get other people to help with a problematic article by posting about it here? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not neutral with regard to racism, like the American Civil Liberties Union is not neutral with regard to constitutional rights. But like the ACLU they are an influential and widely respected organization, and the article could not be NPOV without their input. They are a reliable source for their own views. I don't see anything that is cited to the SPLC without making clear that it is the SPLC talking, except in the lede. So I will try to fix the lede momentarily. ~YellowFives 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Stroker Serpentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My chief concern is one of sourcing this rather unusal article. I have several concerns.

• is this article INDEED a biography of a living person. Kevin Alderman himself under the name Kevin Alderman has acieved little noteriety in and of himself to even MERIT a Wikipedia article TITLED Kevin Alderman. However, he HAS achieved much under the name Stroker Serpentine and is more widely and popularly knwon as such AND as such DOES in my opinion merit a Wikipedia page. cf this article to the article Anshe Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the subject Stroker Serpentine to the subject Anshe Chung. Whatever these two subjects have achieved have been as their "avatars" Kevin Alderman and Ailin Graef remaining chiefly unknown

• However, as an "avatar" does this subject merit the protections of a biography of a living person. Chiefly, with repsect to sourcing, I for one FULLY support the idea that ALL Wikipedia articles be sourced as best as possible with unsourced materials removed. Yet, personages as the subjects Anshe Chung or Stroker Serpentine arent actual PEOPLE but representations within a virtual world and hardly subject to libel.

• The main dispute was the removal of content a source as "removing negative information about a BLP which lacks a high-quality source. My thinking is several: that the subject properly IS not a blp, and that a full fledged edit war might be headed off by a clear ruling on the proper title of the article and what subject the article properly subsumes.

• Mainly Does a Kevin Alderman merit a wiki page in and of himself or rather is the fountainheadof his successes wedded to his adoption of the Stroker Serpentine personae ans as such would an article on Stroker Serpentine merit the protections of a biography of a living person.

• I moved the page from Kevin Alderman to Stroker Serpentine to best reflect the true nom d'voyage of the subject in his interatcions inthe world.

• I undid the removal of the "poorly" sourced materials and added a source. The claims of the removed materials are widely reportedand even more sources may be added or substituted as needed in the future.

• other minor edits inthe hopesofcleaning the article

As a final note, this is an article in dire need of a good cleaning. I would hope that those close tothe subject might be allowed to edit the article without fear of vandalism. --Martinbane (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First point: even if he's using a pen-name, he's still a living person, so BLP does apply. As to moving the page, I'm neutral. We generally go by the name the person is best known by, and it's sounding like his pen name is how he's known. As for the sources, I'll have to look at the article; negative information about a living person must be very well sourced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx Hand that bites that cleared up a lot.

• i agree that the subject IS the blp. I'd counter (and am picking nits lol) that the adoption of an avatar in second life is more a nom d' voyage rather than a nom d' plum THOUGH that doesnt matter it IS an adoption of a second NAME by a LIVING person. It could be argued that instances occur within business in second life where a corporate avatar account is shared by various people (cf the world stock exchange "money holder" account whose name escapes me atm) or a bot account shared by no one (cf the Jenna Jameson avatar in Second Life). However, there is no evidence that the Stroker Serpentine avatar is used by anyone OTHER THAN Alderman so your point remains a valid one.

• as for the name of the article, it is generally clear that Alderman is better known by his NOM D' AFFAIRES Stroker Serpentine-i.e. Alderman is more commonly known as Serpentine period.

• this negative bit has been widely reported. more and better sources can and shall be provided as needed as time goes by.

--Martinbane (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• however i wouldnt be opposedto the removalof the negative materials until sch a time as truly high quality sources may be found. i wont removethe negative bit myself but wouldnt be opposed to its removal inthe near future barring valid, high quality sourcing.

--Martinbane (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hi, this is a bio of a living person. It was in a poor state before, only including a few potentially libelous comments including sourcing to a few controversial media reports. To a nuetral observer that means something is fishy. I've been working on developing this biography whilst including as much sourcing as possible but this one user "Fragma08" keeps accusing me of vandalism and completely "undo's" my work and replaces it with a simple copy/paste from a biography of this person posted elsewhere. I think this person just wants to have it their way. I suggest one of the admins please look into it and allow for the article to be developed according to wikipedia guidlines. Thank You. // At-thanawi (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)At-thanawi

Kindly note, that At-thanawi has been removing sourced work (which was in fact added by a different user several months ago and not myself) repeatedly referring to it as libellous. The information that At-thanawi has been adding was more an attempt of overwriting the opinions of mufti Ebrahim Desai and was completely uncited, which does constitute vandalism. In a related article, Deobandi, this user has also in his revision as of 12:58, 6 November 2009 removed information from the article along with sound reference, which he simply claimed as being "false information and propoganda". I am concerned about the appearent bias. There is strong indication that the user is now attempting the same thing on this article, and removing the opinion/work of the mufti because he finds it "libellous" which makes no sense at all. A person's opinions given in the course of their daily work can not be libelous to that person's biography/article. The article has been under constant vandalism attacks in attempts to remove the opinions of the mufti. This seems very biased and much indicates that either mr Ebrahim Desai or his students are editing the article.Fragma08 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed a chunk of text that was a clear copyvio of http://www.daralmahmood.org/muftisaab.html . – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, unless some more reliable sources per WP:RS can be found, this one looks like it's headed to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article was a coatrack to talk about his view on rape. Removed. Probably deletable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a coatrack. You will find that majority of the biography has been removed because of copyright issues. Therefore the classify it as coatrack only minutes after, is unreasonable. Allow for some time to build on the article and I will do my best to find other sources and details so to develop the article possibly in collaboration with other editors who may know more about this mufti.Fragma08 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgently needs more eyes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what Fragma08 doesn't understand is that he/she does not have sole control over this page. This user wants the biography to include the fatwa on rape (and a few other things) on the bio. While, I want to expand on the biography. Fine, the controversial issues can stay but why is it that this user want's to make his stuff the only information available on this person? I expanded the biography quite a bit (90% of my edits were sourced)without any bias, but everytime fragma08 totally undo's my work. Wikipedia admins should look at the edits I made. How in the world does this not meet Wikipedia standards? I don't personally know the person who's bio we're editing but I have followed him for quite a well and I'm aware of his details. Fragma08 only wants the world to know about his controversial fatwas. That's it. And the rest of the bio he keeps copying/pasting from Desai's biography on another site. At-thanawi (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)At-thanawi

Personal attacks are very unbecoming. If At-thanawi has issues with me, this is not the place. This discussion here is limited to the article of Ebrahim Desai, and not personal issues. Maybe At-thanawi should keep in mind that such allegations could fall under the personal attacks and breach wikipedia guidelines, WP:ATTACK. At-thanawi never attempted discussion before reverting back unsourced details, hence removal [17] [18] [19] [20] . One wonders, where At-thanawi got his information from. Also he failed to in every instance explain, why he deleted the opinions as part of Desai's fatwas, when editing. Much supports that either Desai himself or his students have been reverting/editing this article, but I have not objected to either. So major parts of the article will have to be rebuilt and I welcome any sourced contribution there can be in building up the article but without removing the person's work. May I also remind At-thanawi that I did not make the last (now deleted) biography (more than a few lines). But I maintained it, as it was sourced. The fatwas were thus part of a longer biography (now deleted due to copyright issues). So At-thanawi's statement is false. I also want to bring attention to the changes of At-thanawi made to the article on Deobandi of 12:58, 6 November 2009 where sourced information was removed based on "false information and propoganda". A pattern clearly. Fragma08 (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The entry for Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi is carried over from the marked for deletion entry Sheikh Kalid bin Saqr Al Quasimi (slightly different spelling). It is nearly exclusively sourced from a blog, ostensibly run by him, but operated by California Strategies. The location of the blog is www.sheikhkhalisrak.com : [21]

The Justice Department Foreign Agent Registration Act records clearly show that California Strategies, which runs the propoganda blog [22](see legally mandated disclosure at bottom of blog pages) is hired and paid for by Sheikh Khalid. Here is the document showing that this is the case: [23] This is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards.

The blog and site have been created and run by a PR firm, California Strategies to accomplish Sheikh Khalid's political goals of being reinstated as crown prince of Ras Al Khaimah.

He holds not position of power in Ras Al Khaimah or the United Arab Emirates as can be shown by the OFFICIAL UAE site that lists the crown princes and deputy rulers of each emirate: [24] (scroll down to crown princes and you will see Sheikh Khalid's brother Sheikh Saud is the Crown Prince of Ras Al Khaimah)

None of this information is verifiable by neutral third parties and as such should be removed.

To recap - this is new entry is the same group putting their private political messages on Wikipedia. They have now simply moved the unverified content to a new entry - Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi. It uses the purpose created website, [25], as a neutral third party reference. All entries citing this propaganda blog should e removed. --Lucastar78 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on WP:NPOVN, the offending article is now redirected to the other offending article, which is itself under review for copyright infringement (along with a host of other problems). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that in a recent change to the Lester Coleman page, an IP address has replaced cited content with a legal threat, warning that anyone who replaces the content will be reported for violating a court order. There is some discussion of this on the talk page, but it is over two months stale and, personally, I don't know anything about it, but I thought that it would be best to bring it up here and see if anyone else does. Cheers, CP 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal as the content was sourced. SPA's have been continually attacking the article, making unsourced claims for months. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

this is the disputed content....

On April 10, 2000, he was sentenced to ten years on thirty-six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument. The trial court then suspended imposition of the sentence and granted Coleman probation for five years. However, on June 11, 2002, his probation officer filed an affidavit stating that Coleman had violated the terms of his probation and was residing in Saudi Arabia. Coleman was then apprehended later in Florida and was returned to Kentucky where he was then formally sentenced to ten years in prison on May 29, 2003. Later, upon appeal to vacate his sentence, the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky denied his motion and affirmed his conviction on May 28, 2004. this is the supporting cite

Are there any other citations for any of the material or is it just this single source? Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[26], [27], [28] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert but those citations don't seem to actually support these comments and are not strong enough to show notability or wide coverage of a notable event. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They show Coleman was arrested, convicted, sentenced, and violated his parole. The article is not about an event, but rather about Coleman. I would think a jail sentence would be notable in a bio. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A splendid use of primary sources (court documents) to be used contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP which states "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Collect (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused. Are you saying the court doc should be used or not? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a no. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what is criminal possession of a forged instrument.Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe it means a person is knowingly holding a fake cheque, money order, etc. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Which jail is he in? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea if he's still in jail. Does it matter? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what jail was he in? Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Records where personal information is included are barred outright. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out Collect.Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the paragraph can probably be rebuilt using other sources. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to do that, I wanted to say that the sources should be strong and cover the content well. Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider the sources I provided above strong. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in defending this article over the past year or so. There have been repeated attempts to remove sourced material from the article and replace it with material that cannot be substantiated -- this is merely the most recent attempt, and we mustn't fall for it. The subject of the article is a convicted con artist -- previous attempts have involved things like claiming that he has a twin brother with a very similar name who is a university professor. An informative Wikipedia article about him serves a purpose -- we ought not to allow it to be watered down, or it may well be misused. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be an unnecessary task to rewrite the offending paragraph—in order to conform to the WP:BLP issue raised by Collect. The pdf-files (i.e. a primary source) are easily confirmed by a secondary source (i.e. the Lexington Herald-Leader articles which were published during the period of time of Coleman's incarceration). Supporters of removing the offending material have been given ample opportunity to provide reliable and verifiable documents which contradict the statements made in the offending paragraph yet, to date, have provided little other than useless original research which often leads to broken internet links or phantom, government Word documents. The supporters of removing the paragraph are well versed in the crafts of writing, of providing false documents, and of making threats but they have yet to provide anything convincing. —Merry Yellow (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Timpanycecelia's remarks are unsupported by simple searching of the Internet for any reference to a tort action "TRT-MXR-2001-04993", or to a "Kevin J. Malasinski". Why would anyone accept Timpanycecelia's editing as a valid reason to delete vital, well-documented biographical information on Lester Coleman, a fraudster of the highest caliber? The offending paragraph should be restored. Also, an issue such as this might be better served as a Request for Comment where a concensus of Wikipedia opinion would be expressed on the Lester Coleman talk page.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of a problem in Sholam Weiss. Editors kept reverting sourced material and inserting supposed primary source references (trial transcripts). In this case, it appears that both sides are using primary sources, and that's troublesome. Am I mistaken on this or are there reliable secondary sources on this Coleman's fraud legal issues? If so, those and only those should be used. However, if Coleman contacts Wikipedia and can provide evidence that he was exonerated or dismissed or whatever, then obviously that needs to be reflected. We can't just rigidly say the guy was convicted of something if in fact he was not. Bottom line is that I'm just not clear on the sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The seconday sources are articles published in the Lexington Herald-Leader, a small, Lexington, Kentucky, newspaper which does not provide hypertext links to any of its articles. Searching a pay-for-view subscription service provides first paragraph (plus Headline text). The material presented is sufficient for corroboration of the primary source material: i.e. Coleman was arrested, was convicted, was granted probation, abused his privilege, and was eventually incarcerated for the remainder of his sentence. There has never been any corroboration that these specifics are inaccurate, or false, or misleading. Hiding behind a dubious Wikipedia principle about not using primary source material allows detractors to write an inaccurate, watered-down biography.—Merry Yellow (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see what you're referring to, but it seems OK with me. Sometimes, Google Archive search gets you the same stuff for free as can be had from the pay services. I know what you mean about primary sources, as that was the problem in the Sholam Weiss article. It was at one point an amazing love song to a guy serving 1000 years in prison for fraud. However, if that IP or user claims to be or to represent Coleman, BLP shows deference to claims of that kind. This kind of situation does arise from time to time, and even legal threats need to be carefully evaluated to be sure we are not ignoring a valid claim. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the previously mentioned Lexington Herald-Leader article-summaries (found here under "No twins. Same Person") you may find the Archive 1 page as well as the Articles for deletion "Lex" Coleman interesting reading. (Note In the "Articles for deletion Lex Coleman" discussion, one must be mindful that the haughty User:Nrswanson used several of his confirmed sockpuppets [29] to sway the sentiment of the discussion in favor of "deletion" versus "merging". Thus, because of his behavior, many valuable additions to the Lester Coleman article have been tainted and overlooked. For example, Lester has been teaching in Saudi Arabia as the Chairperson, for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities at American University of Technology. This latter fact (plus Lester's role as Lex Coleman the LexTalk America radioshow host) help to establish Lester Coleman's notability and we should be annoyed with User:Nrswanson for his arrogant disruption of valuable information.) —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As of 18:02, November 26, this discussion has returned to the Talk:Lester Coleman talkpage subsection "Fraud". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lester_Coleman#Fraud —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has a real slant against the person and also a lot of original research. For instance it cites the US Army's policy to suggest that he should have gone to Vietnam but got out of it. It also includes information about 2 lobbyists who worked for him and were also involved in unrelated scandals, seeming to imply that he was also involved. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is nothing more than a political attack...the lede says it all...Despite FBI allegations of corruption, in the nearly two years since the '06 elections, no formal charges or allegations have ever been levied against him. ..We shouldn't allow wikipedia to be used in this way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Claes Zangenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mr. Zagenberg is not a noted Norwegian expert on Company Law and author of several books on the subject of cross-border-incorporations. He is a unkown norwegian jurist wich is in the buisness of selling NUF companies to Norwegians. He claims to be an author of several books. However, in the official Norwegian database of books http://ask.bibsys.no/ask/action/result?cmd=&kilde=biblio&kilde=emneportal&kilde=forskpub&kilde=forskpro&lang=nb&q=Claes%20Zangenberg you can clearly see that he has printed his book three times, not written trhree books. Further, under the "Zangenberg" directory, he claims that he is a "advisor to the Norwegian Ministry of Finance". He has mearly written a letter to the Norwegian Ministry of Finance, this does not make him an advisor. Further, there is no Lawfirm with the name Claes Zangenberg // Josefk84 (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Article has been trimmed t within an inch of its life. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion. There is absolutely no indication of the importance or significance of this individual. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Darl McBride article is a target of recent vandalism from a few IP addresses, including 65.39.66.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 204.62.193.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 204.62.193.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 204.62.193.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All of the IP's are probably the same individual, since the content is almost identical, the addreses geolocate to the same area of Arizona, and they are all associated with fastQ, who I assume is a local internet provider in that area.

Diffs are [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36].

Note that vandalism, 3RR, and edit-war warnings have been removed from user talk pages as well: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

As I have noted on Talk:Darl McBride, I have my own very strong opinions about the character of the BLP subject, and won't be editing the article, just watching for vandalism and other editing patterns.

Please consider semi-protecting the articles, and blocking the specific IP addresses not already blocked (if not the /24 subnet) for a short period of time, to give the vandal time to lose interest. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is little of the extreme amounts of vandalism required to warrant semi-protection; most vandalism is very recent. Please consider reporting to WP:AIAV if any more activity such as this goes on. Intelligentsium 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about possible BLP violations in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.[43] I pointed out that according to BLP, self-published sources may only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". All of the self-published sources included on the list directly criticize the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel (ie. third parties) who've stated the scientific assessment in a report. See the list's lede, it's basically what the list is about. All the quotations are criticisms of the scientists on that panel and their findings. A random find-on-page for the word "blog" shows that source #44 fails this part of BLP. Find the statement by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that source #44 supports and you'll see several claims made about third parties. There's other self-published sources in the list as well, source #44 is just an example.

I am looking for feedback from the greater Wikipedia community on whether this constitutes a BLP violation per Wikipedia:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published_source Criteria #2. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a weird complaints, or rather several ones mashed in one. Most of the "self-published" sources and blogs are not used to make claims about third parties (and, btw, the IPCC is not a LP, so that would be outside the scope of the BLP policy), but rather as sources on the subjects own opinion per WP:SELFPUB. If other cases remain, please list them outside the above blanket statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC is literally a panel of living persons, but more to the point: Criteria #2 isn't about the person in the biography, it's about their reliability to make statements about third parties in a self-published source. It's basically: They can reliably state things about themselves, but they can't reliably state things about others, because it's WP:SELFPUB. All the reliability issues WP:SELFPUB tries to avoid are included in the list under the guise that it's just their view about themselves. But it's not. It's their view on the third party of the IPCC (and sometimes the individual scientists who make up the IPCC). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• The way I understand WP policy a person's views would have to be commented on in secondary published sources, not just mentioned in his or her or another person's blog. I didn't see any major problems with sourcing in the article, although there might be a few. The list was a little weird though. People with views from "the world is really cooling" to "global warming is a good thing" are all included together. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The IPCC is literally a panel of living person" - well, by that argument BLP also applies to the government of the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, and Al-Qaeda. BLP protects individuals, not groups. As for the rest, let me repeat: The sources are not used to make claims about third parties. X says Y about Z is a claim about X, not a claim about Z. Self-published sources by X are usually acceptable as sources for statements by X. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. Statements by X about Z are usually unacceptable if they are in a self published source. They're only included here under the guise that X's comment about Z is really about X, but that doesn't make any sense. If a person says the IPCC's statements are erroneous, that comment is about the IPCC, not themselves. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. But none of those are BLP matters. I will repeat it once again. WE don't make statements about the IPCC. WE make statements about what person X has said. For that purpose, self-published sources by person X are ok. Even if person X says outrageous things about the Pope or Jerry Falwell's mother. I wont necessarily repeat this over and over again - if you stick to the same point, just assume it done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it isn't about what WE claim. Criteria #2 is about whether the SELF PUBLISHED MATERIAL involves claims about third parties. IT does, and we quote it verbatim. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying this is an issue for the WP:RS/N rather than the BLP/N? I only came here because Kim suggested this is the correct place. If not, should this be taken there instead? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying you are wrong, your interpretation of policy is wrong, and you dragging this from hither to yonder without replying substantially to points made will not change this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied substantially to your points. You disagree. Fine, let others chime in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I agree that the use of self-published sources is not a BLP violation in this case because, as Stephan Schulz states, the IPCC is not a person. Some types of self-published sources may be a mistake in this article for other reasons, but that debate is not for this forum. I do have a big BLP concern with this list. My concern is that the "weird" (as Steve Dufour writes above) nature of the list's subdivisions and inclusion criteria are so arbitrary that inclusion, exclusion, and subcategorization--and their potential impacts on the people listed and not listed--is based on what a group of Wikipedia editors think is important instead of on the person's actual viewpoint relative to IPCC views. However, the list in question was the recent subject of a no-consensus AfD, and emotions seem to be running high on the talk page and elsewhere at the moment, so I'm not sure now is the best time to use this noticeboard--or at least, it's not the best time for me to use it. I hope experts at BLP feel free to chime in on the list's talk page in a week or so when cooler heads may prevail. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. You've missed something. Unless the scientists' statements specify that they oppose the IPCC consensens, or an external reliable source does, it is WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation to place them on the list. The fact that the statements appear to disagree with the IPCC consensus, in the opinion of the adding editor, is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz above. Also, that statements appear to disagree (or agree) in the judgment of the editor, and the consensus of editors, is quite adequate for inclusion and not a violation of NOR or BLP, and is what we do in every article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be impossible to write if every source needed a second source to say that the first source said what it obviously (by consensus) said. And why would we not need a third source to say that the second source really did say that the first source said what it seemed to say, etc?John Z (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, as it related to WP:BLP, means we may not interpret a statement made by a living person. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That is another issue that has been raised. If my argument isn't a BLP issue, certainly that one is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A common misuse of WP:PRIMARY. It states "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." If the person's statement and the IPCC's statement can be placed alongside each other and the contradiction can be readily identified, then there is no "interpretation". Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232's assessment about Arthur Rubin's objection. Contradictions can be readily identified. If this really were a list of opponents to IPCC statements instead of a list of opponents to an arbitrarily-defined subset of IPCC statements (that a group of editors here think are the only really important ones relevant to global warming), then I would not have a BLP issue. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. This is yet another piece of the long fallout from the AFD on this article, with some editors who failed to get their way there going through increasingly bizarre wikilawyering. It looks like they have become emotionally attached to their desires on this article and can't let it go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

sez you. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way.

• In an article about X, we cannot say that "X opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" unless X or some WP:RS says that. We could not do it based only on X's statement which differs from a signficant point of the IPCC assessment.
• Why is the list different?

And it should be in the BLP board because otherwise the (now redacted) list of 700 from the Congressional Record would be a legitimate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the list of 700 would never be a reliable source to anything other that Marc Morano's (and possibly Inhofe's) opinion. You are confusing things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding is that WP:BLP policies apply to every article, and everything else on WP. Living persons are certainly involved here where a person's career could be harmed by being on the wrong list. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that BLP applies to the list... it most certainly does. And your example is very much the reason that inclusion into the article isn't just accepted. We need a clear unambiguous quote, that directly contradicts the premises for the list, the person also has to be notable per Wikipedias notability criteria (which is why we do not allow red-links).

The discussion here is about subtleties in interpretation of BLP. The original claim here is that we cannot use a self-published quote from a scientists if he anywhere in his text mentions something that can be indirectly related to another living person. Here that indirect link is that the IPCC is a panel of scientists, and that the texts criticizes the IPCC therefore BLP disallows usage of the text. A rather novel interpretation to my view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion of any possible BLP violation in the list, not just the one I asked about. It's a request for outside independent eyes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that requesting independent eyes is good. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but trying to have a discussion about "any possible" violation might be...less good. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion How about a new policy: "WP is not an enemies list"? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That policy, like most others, would certainly give us a tool to try to poke each other with when we're too lazy or cranky or exasperated to engage with each other about detailed issues on a talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Rd232. That's exactly what has not been done. Many of the scientists in the "has not been established" or "cause unknonwn" classes are claimed to oppose an IPCC conclusion that something is "likely". There is not necessarily a contradiction or opposition there. If the classes where IPCC makes a definative conclusion, and a scientist makes a statement which contradicts that statement, and (this has not been checked, as far as I know), the scientist's statement was made after the IPCC paper, then the argument might be acceptable. I still don't think it is, but that could be handled adequately by making definitions clear in the lede of the article. As it stands, if IPCC said "likely" and a scientist said "unknown", there's no conflict. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Short comment: Quotes are checked for whether the statement is made after the IPCC report. If they aren't then the quote can't be used. And "likely" is a certainty estimate (in this case: 66-90% chanceSPM footnote 7) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Likely" may be a certainty estimate in IPCC, but it's unknown whether "unknown" represents an uncertainty estimate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but this is a statement that show complete ignorance of the IPCC report, or ignorance of how confidence intervals work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Even if that's what IPCC means by "likely" (which requires a specific statement in the article and a reference, that may synthesize an interpretation of the the scientist's statement. If a scientist explicitly says that it's unknown, that might just mean he has a higher standard of "known". If a scientist explicitly says the data is insufficient to calculate a probability, that still doesn't necessary disagree with the IPCC statement. If a scientist states a specific probability range which does not intersect the range specified by the IPCC, that might be a difference.

  And I do understand confidence intervals. I'm confident (pun intended) that the IPCC paper doesn't actually represent such, even if it claims to, and, even if it did, confidence intervals have a "probability" of being incorrect.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  It is not an "if thats what the IPCC means" - its a "that is what the IPCC means" statement. Please at the very least attempt to read up on the subject. And all the quotes by the scientists have been checked and verified (with both other documents and within context) that it is really unknown that they mean. Please try to at least verify or check what you state - as we've asked you again and again: Please substantiate with specifics, instead of being deliberately vague. There is a well-established process on the list, where you remove a disputed scientist from the list, for further discussion, if there is any doubt about the veracity of the quote. Try doing that. You are implying that we (all the editors of that list) deliberately are trying to game BLP, and frankly i find it rather annoying. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ahem.

  1. I said if because it's not important at this point. I believe you. However, confidence intervals have error probablilities.
  2. The quotes from Balling, Cristy, Cotton, Deming, de Freitas, and Lintzen, at least, do not contradict the IPCC statement withour further investigation. That investigation would be WP:SYNTH unless it's an expansion of the existing quotes or a reliablie third-party analysis. Some of them could be placed in the category that they believe the IPCC model(s) is(are) faulty, which would be a different form of opposition than that the cause of warming is unknown.
  3. I don't think you're delibrately trying to WP:SYNTHESIZE violations of WP:BLP, but that's the effect. The statements quoted do not contradict the IPCC statement you (collectively) claim they do.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Even if that's what IPCC means by "likely" ... I said if because it's not important at this point. I believe you. - please stop wasting our time with stuff that is (a) not important and (b) that you believe anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  What is the appropriate grammatical structure for stating that I accept the hypothesis that that's what the IPCC meant by "likely", without verifying, because it doesn't help your cause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well, your wording right now, tells us that you still haven't bothered to even glance at the IPCC reference. Because it is no "hypothesis", every instance of "likely" is even footnoted so that you won't be in doubt. How exactly can we take you serious, if you can't be bothered to verify the basis of your own argumentation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  That is rather impressive. I'm only going to address one of your examples (the most blatantly wrong one): Deming. I'm interested in how you can reconcile "There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty." with criteria 2 (which is a certainty estimate). Or how you can reconcile "If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful." with criteria 3 (which states the exact opposite). In what way exactly does the quote by Demming not include him per the list criteria? Deming even closes with a statement that he considers the current scientific opinion "...misinformation and irrational hysteria." (nb: This is something that should be raised on talk, and not here btw) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple BLP violations I'm not seeing a clear BLP violation, so keeping my comments short. There are certainly SYN and NPOV problems. Basically, the article is another demonstration how the (poor) inclusion criteria of a list can be used (intentionally or not) to Wikilawyer around most or all of Wikipedia's content-related policies. Epic fail. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Could you please expand on this? Particularly of interest to me is why you call it "(poor) inclusion criteria" and what you believe is NPOV (as well as the SYN part of course). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'll do so on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think the most problematic BLP concerns aren't that scientists are criticizing others, but that original research is being done in order to ascribe beliefs to these scientists, sourced only by quotes from these scientists themselves. An earlier BLPN report of this same dispute here states these concerns more clearly. Arthur Rubin (15:55, 16 November 2009) has provided a list of examples. In addition to WP:SYN violations, this looks like a violation of WP:Blp#Reliable_sources and WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  After posting a deletion essay on the talkpage here with Ronz's main concerns SYNTH and NPOV Ronz has realised that he will get nowhere at present because the article has just gone through its 4th AfD. So it appears he has decided to change his mind completely on the BLP issues and go for Arthur Rubin's very weak BLP argument as an alternative attack. If he had been involved before he would realise that all of this has been covered many times. WP:SELFPUB is irrelevant, when determining the POV of a scientist it is their own publications which are clearly the best source ie. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Rather than slinging general mud over the whole list it would be far more constructive if he could point out which sources are not reliable enough to back up the individual entries. If he cannot argue this sufficiently then there is no argument. If he can then the individual should be removed from the list. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I suspect this is the real problem with the article - editors who misrepresent, attack, and disrupt in order to drive away any perspective other than their own. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but editors who come in with complete tangents whilst I am working on improving the article and then revert or hide any criticism of their new tangents on some extremely weak civility grounds seem to me to be wasting everyones time. Polargeo (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, WP:SELFPUB doesn't apply, since the only self-published documents that are used are written by the subjects themselves... and they are most certainly WP:RS to their own opinion. As for the SYN argument - please refer to the comment by Rd232 above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  WP:SELFPUB applies if editors are using the sources for original research, which appears to be the case despite comments to the contrary. Wikipedia editors are doing original research to identify and categorize the beliefs of scientists, as well as doing original research to identify what scientists are worth mentioning. Such cherry picking of scientists and the self-published sources of their beliefs are also problematic in regard to NPOV. There are many reasons why WP:SELFPUB #5 states, "the article is not based primarily on such sources," most related to NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your invocation of #5 goes against the meaning of #5. This argument is heading towards WP:wikilawyer territory. What #5 means is we should not create an article on selfpub. This has not been done here. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please note that I wrote "this looks like a violation of WP:Blp#Reliable_sources and WP:SELFPUB." Perhaps I should have added, "combined" or "both, together." --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  It would be far more helpful if you could point out a particular occasion where the soure isn't reliable enough to backup what it is trying to back up. When we need more reliable sources to verify a statement please point this out. Just stating this over and over again without pointing to the actual source that is inadequate is unhelpful. Again this should be done on the article's talkpage and if there are any serious problems the individual can be removed immediately. To attack the whole list with vague mudslinging is pure disruption and the reason for my inital reaction to your essay. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Arthur Rubin (15:55, 16 November 2009) has provided a list of examples." --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  He has posted six names from a list of forty without any detail of why any of the named individuals fail. And that is from the most ardent BLP criticiser of this list. Many disagree with him, as above. So let us now look in detail at any one of those 6 individuals on the talkpage of the article and deal with it if necessary. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see the IPCC as a living person, it is a creation like a corporation, BLP does not apply to whole IPCC's results. The complaint should be about reliable sources, which I can't follow from the info presented here. Public officials should be held accountable, and publicly funded work should be disclosed. Original research and synthesis on the reports should be removed. The specific issue should be closed, and restated if needed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to one sentence of criticism by David Frum placed in the Mark Levin article, SPA User:Malvenue has inserted a two paragraph screed in both the Levin and Frum articles. Request assistance and intervention in dealing with an editor not acting in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about some diffs so we'll know what sentences and paragraphs you are referring to? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel has repeatedly inserted a quote from a non-neutral source in violation of consensus which violates WP:BLP. Any attempt to correct the issue, whether it be removal of the offensive material, rewording or insertion of a balancing statement are met with unilateral reversions, complaints, personal attacks, claims of policy-shopping, etc. Strangely enough, the only response he has NOT undertaken is a justification of why his insertion supports WP:BLP despite repeated requests to do so. He has also ignored any attempts at compromise and even mediation. It is obvious this person is not complying with WP:AGF. Malvenue (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An update and some diffs added to the initial paragraph. I'd forgotten about this report. User:Malvenue twice violated the 3RR and it resulted in the article being locked. Malvenue has changed from violating the BLP to claiming that BLP prohibits even the presence of a mere sentence of a dissenting view from a major commentator. He is simply lying about most of the above, as I've repeatedly discussed this with editors on this page, most of whom are acting in good faith despite the disruptive presence of Malvenue. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol, Gamaliel provided one diff above, which shows Levin's rebuttal of the criticism.[[44]

The other source of edit warring is Malvenue's repeated deletion of criticism at Mark Levin, e.g., [45]. Malvenue says on the talk page that criticism of Mark Levin in, e.g., Newsweek (circulation of 2.7 million per week), isn't acceptable per WP:BLP because the publication criticizes Levin directly, instead of reporting that someone else criticizes Levin (a kind of "teach the controversy" requirement). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is not what I'm saying at all. In the future if you're going to paraphrase me and take comments out of context I would appreciate it if you would at least notify me on my talk page so I can respond. The portion of the discussion to which you are referring is where Gamaliel disputes the sources cited in Levin's response citing National Review as being biased. I pointed out to him his citation of Newsweek falls under the same failure as it is now a self-proclaimed issue advocacy magazine and no longer a news periodical. If you read the discussion on the talk page you will see my objection to his own "screed" (his word) is to Frum as a "reliable source" not simply to the citations as you would have us believe. The only person lieing on this page is Gamaliel who constantly misrepresents what I say and what I mean in order to further his own editorial preference. He has failed to act in good faith, he has repeatedly violated WP:EQ with constant insults, personal attacks, threats and vulgar language. I have repeatedly placed compromise language on the table which he has refused to even address. I issued an RFC which he has ignored. In short, his actions on that page demonstrate he has no intention of acting in good faith or discussing anything that does not entail anything other than what he decrees is acceptable editing. As for my "constant deletion of criticism" you again misrepresent what's been going on. I notice you don't mention Gamaliel's constant deletions of any rebuttals by the subject. Malvenue (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I assume that you're capable of watching conversations about your behavior and POV pushing without every editor who joins the conversation pinging you on your talk page. You posted above, so you were clearly aware of the conversation without me reminding you about it.

Your claim that Newsweek is "now a self-proclaimed issue advocacy magazine and no longer a news periodical" is strange. In an article, I'd tag it ((dubious)) as well as ^{[citation needed]}. Certainly my search of Newsweek.com for corroboration does not support your belief.

Fact[46][47], not belief. Please [WP:AGF] even as you're misrepresenting my positions. Malvenue (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not finding the word "advocacy" anywhere in either the NYT article or the blog. I'm also not finding any indication in these non-Newsweek links that self-proclaimed is an appropriate description.

It may interest you to look at the timestamp on my message above. The comment that I made at the beginning of last week cannot reasonably be expected to reflect stance you took up the following week. It is based on the position you were advocating before my comment, which you will find examples of here and here. I realize that in this desperate search to find any excuse at all to remove criticism of Mark Levin from Wikipedia, you might have forgotten what some of your older arguments were. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, how absolutely even-handed of you. It's unfortunate you can't resist being insulting when discussing these things.

I'm not sure which part of "The Death of the News Weekly: Newsweek to Restructure, Opinionate and Take Aim at Economist" and "The venerable newsweekly’s ingrained role of obligatory coverage of the week’s big events will be abandoned once and for all, executives say" is hard to understand, and I could spend a lot of time sourcing more about Newsweek but it's obvious you aren't listening. Once again, for the record, just on the off-chance you happen to actually read what I write here, I stated the view on Newsweek in response to Gamaliel's statement that National Review was not a legitimate source either, something you picked out of context and are now trying to hammer me over the head with. I doubt this will actually sink with you as it appears you've already picked a side, but then again hope springs eternal. Malvenue (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My trip through the page's archives shows only a single instance of that argument in your name[48], and this comment was made five days after my comment above. Time travel being an imperfect art, my comment above can be presumed not to be responsive to comments made at a later date by you. So unless you want to claim ownership of some other accounts involved in that discussion, or perhaps to provide a diff in which you compare Newsweek to National Review before 17 November (such a comment might exist, particularly if none of the editors involved in the alleged conversation bothered to name the publication), then perhaps you'll agree that my comment on the 17th has nothing to do with your comment on the 22nd.

I reject again your unfounded assertion that a decision to not focus on CNN-style newsgathering turns Newsweek into a wikt:self-proclaimed advocacy publication. There are more than two kinds of publications in this world, you know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reject all you like. You're entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts. At the risk of going completely off track here I end the Newsweek discussion now as it has nothing to do with the Notice section at all and I have corrected you on your taking my words out of context and explained the correct context. Malvenue (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors following this may be interested in Malvenue's RfC on the article talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of excitement in the blogosphere about climategate etc [49] etc etc. This is leading to a lot of junk landing (either maliciously or by misunderstanding) on various pages e.g. [50], [51], [52] (or more obviously spurious [53]) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinda crazy. The anon IP's are edit warring now. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop censoring these reports. No authors of the e-mails have disputed the genuineness of any of them. The story has been reported in the New York Times, the BBC, etc. in the references which you have censored. Please stop censoring well-verified reports of highly notable events concerning public figures.Flegelpuss (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This, "The e-mails document the efforts of Jones, Michael Mann and several of Jones' subordinates at the University of East Anglia to discredit global warming skeptics, and hide data that would not support their theory of Climate Change" is not well sourced at all as a blog is being used for a cite. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sourcing such allegations to a blog is completely unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Stephan for semi-ing several of these articles William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can help, let me know. I agree with WMC et al. that "Climate Gate" should not be even within months of changing a single word of text of any living scientist's BLP, if ever. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, it may also be appropriate to speedy the already-PRODded coatrack 'article' Climategate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I note that the article was created by the suspiciously new user Doize77 (talk · contribs) as his second edit. His first edit was to bluelink his userpage. My spidey sense is tingling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Doize77 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as one of the many sockpuppets of Tinpac (talk · contribs). Other probable sockpuppets have been causing problems; there's an outstanding checkuser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you list the BLPs where this is an issue, I would be happy to review them for semiprotection as appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to come here to say a similar thing. In addition,

• Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

need the eyes of BLP friendly editors. While they are not biographies, BLP issues will almost definitely arise and there have already been accusations made against specific individuals, likely to be more over he coming days so we need to make sure these are well sourced and necessary/appropriate to mention etc. While I personally won't object to Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy (former title Climategate) being deleted as TOAT has suggested I'm doubtful this will happen. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've retitled "Climategate" as Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy, per WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal's deprecation of -gate in article titles and our usual practice in such cases (e.g. "Rathergate" → Killian documents controversy). I've also removed some evident BLP violations from Climatic Research Unit and removed some unreliable sources (blogs) being used to support controversial statements, and I've cleaned up/expanded the controversy article to make it properly encyclopedic. I think its notability is fairly well-established now that it's received substantial mainstream coverage. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested on WP:RPP that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident be semi-protected for a week; it's being hit repeatedly by sockpuppets and IPs violating BLP and NPOV. Could someone please step up to semi the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done per my offer above. MastCell ^Talk 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some more eyes on the following articles would be useful. I've just deleted a bunch of blog-sourced accusations of criminality added by Tillman (talk · contribs), which I'm disappointed to say remained in the article overnight. The hysteria in the right-wing blogosphere and media appears to be intensifying - I was amused to read calls for RICO investigations, apparently overlooking the fact that East Anglia's not in America - and a lot of frankly rather defamatory accusations are being made. Some help is needed in monitoring these articles to ensure that we don't end up with a stack of further BLP violations.

• Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael E. Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin E. Trenberth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another issue is that some editors are repeatedly trying to add commentary or links to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to the biographies of scientists mentioned by or senders or recipients of the leaked e-mails, apparently on the basis that those scientists are "co-conspirators". I'd suggest monitoring links for a bit to spot such occurrences. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• James Hansen

could perhaps do with semi-ing if the recent anon stuff keeps coming William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on those articles as well. I ask other editors to do the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See here, below, for a more balanced perspective. We now have at least five reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Financial Times) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've redacted the name of the family member and other personal information in the section called "Controversies" (bad sub-heading I know). I've also provided an explanation of why on the talk page. I'm just wondering if the information should be there at all considering that it fits in awkwardly with the other information, and it's relevance to the article is spurious except for the familial connection. It is also an event that is currently being settled in courts, so this entry may not even be appropriate perhaps unless a there is a conviction. Sambauers (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like coat-racking to me, the article is about Lee not her son, I have removed it, if in doubt, take it out, BLP. There is also a lot of uncited stuff there which I have tagged. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I definitely have POV about this topic so I was forcing myself to assume good faith and needed to double check on action beyond the obvious WP guidelines. I'd like at least one more person to provide confirmation before this is marked as resolved (or preferably for someone else to mark it as resolved). Sambauers (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Error corrected in article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

24.136.170.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at James Arthur Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suspect Manosmilusos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) new user, multiple users warned, ignoring talk, and repeatedly adding un-sourced POV. Diffs: [54] [55] [56] [57] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is very likely that this is User:Manosmilusos, who has made no edits outside of James Arthur Ray. I agree that something needs to be done; probably the article should be semi-protected.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I should have put a request in for user blocking ... it's annoying now, but the issue isn't severe to require page protection. Would appreciate an administrators attention. If the user persist, will have to take up the issue with the vandal admins. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• ATTENTION the user persists in disruptive editing [58]Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Temp block by [59]

An editor has blanked the page claiming the subject finds it libelous. Can someone take a look over it? 152.3.249.63 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Without sources to verify notability the article could be subject to deletion. Suggest following WP:BLP. I see no dispute when there are no sources cited. The article was tagged [60]] User AliMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may wish to declare WP:COI on their own talk page. Suggest closing this issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous blog was used as a source in a biography of a living person. I removed it; another editor stated that blogs may be reliable sources and put it back. The blog is not by the subject, is highly critical of the subject, and is anonymous. This seems in opposition to the principles on the BLP page. --Golgibody (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one, since I largely agree with the criticisms in the blog... but it probably shouldn't be in the biography. It might be a reasonable source for articles on the general question of nutritional therapies for cancer, but doesn't seem to meet the bars for blog sources set forth in WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

World Football Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I know it's not a bio article per se, but this article has had repeated disputes with a minority insisting that certain information about the hosts and the show not be included, while simultaneously insisting that inflammatory remarks by host Steven Cohen be included. We're long past WP:3RR, but I didn't want to request a block and thereby further incite anyone. –JohnnyPolo24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyPolo24 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – this was an individual case and is in no way a guideline for any other boxing articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on a discussion at WikiProject Boxing, Vintagekits added several derogatory (sourced) nicknames to the Audley Harrison article. It was reverted by two editors who disagreed with the addition, and the case was brought to AN/I.

I restored the previous version and protected the page for 3 days. IMO this brings up BLP problems, but I'd rather remain a neutral admin and simply initiate a discussion. The WT:BOXING "consensus" that VK cites only involves 5 users agreeing at a project level. This edit was clearly contested by others, so I'm opening a thread here for centralized discussion. Uninvolved opinions would be welcome. JamieS93 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A limit of 2-nicknames in the Infobox per boxer's article, would be acceptable (with consent reached at each boxer's article). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nicknames should not appear in the infobox if they do not appear in the main body of the article. Otherwise, they should be highly, highly significant and mentioned in multiple independent sources, because, to satisfy BLP, we need the best possible sources for things like nicknames. --John (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames and other information not mentioned elsewhere in an article is often included in an infobox. This is not a problem. Usual standards for verifiability apply. I think the issue is whether including multiple derogatory nicknames would give undue weight to a particular viewpoint.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

John, so if nicknames are mentioned in the body of the article and have multiple reliable sources then they should be in the infobox?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I say include the nicknames in the Harrison article. I think it is poor form that because Off2riorob thinks his owns the BLP noticeboard that we are discussing this again and that we are overruling WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the Boxing Project with regard this piece of boxing information - I am also a little disappointed that the editor that opened this discussion did not contact each of the parties involved on the Audley Harrison talkpage and the Boxing Project to inform them that this discussion is going on.

Without doubt nicknames are a central piece of information with regards a boxers, his notability and persona. Many boxers are synonymous with there nicknames and are even recognisable be there nicknames alone. e.g. Butterbean (Eric Esch), "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler, "Prince" Naseem Hamed, "Sugar" Ray Leonard, "Cinderella Man" (James Braddock), Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, Hector “Macho” Camacho, Kid "Kid" Lewis, Ronald "Winky" Wright, even this year Olympian Joe Murray went public looking for a nickname before he went pro. It's a crucial piece of information. The WP:BOXING !voted 9:1 with regards this issue.

Many fighters have more than one nickname, take the following examples for instance. Anthony Small has multiple comedic nicknames including "the Scream", "Sweet Pea" and "Sugar Ray Clay Jones Jr." - he isn't the only one and I think all should be added. To limit the number of nicknames to just two is horrible contrived. If a boxer has multiple common nicknames (be they favourable or unfavourable) then they should be included as long as it is sourced. Which of the Tyson nicknames would you remove or keep? "Iron Mike", "The Baddest Man on the Planet", "Mighty Mike" or "Kid Dynamite"? what about Pacquiao? "Pac-Man", "Manny", "the Pride of the Philippines" or "The Mexicutioner", or Ricky Hatton - The Hitman, the Manchester Mexican, the Pride of Hyde or Ricky Fatton?

At wikipedia we shouldnt take peoples personal feelings into consideration and we shouldnt cover up negative aspects of a biography. At the Boxing Project we don't hide the fact that Luis Resto destroyed a mans life or that Mike Tyson disfigured another fighter. We dont sweep things under the carpet to be polite - this isnt a dinner party! Not all boxers like their nicknames and infact many find them offensive or misrepresentative. We shouldnt ignore negative nicknames. Jimmy McLarnin didnt like being called "the Hebrew Scourge" or "the Jew Killer", Nikolai Valuev finds "the Beast from the East" utterly degrading and offensive, Thomas Hearns objected to "the Hitman", Victor Ortiz doesnt like being called "Vicious", John Mugabi hated "the Beast" and Kermit Cintron doesnt like being called "the Killer" because of his charity work, Paulie Malinaggi never liked being called "the Dead End Kid", as did Sam Langford being called the racist epitaph "the Boston Tar Baby" and Audley Harrison doesnt like "Fraudley" or "A-Farce". Interesting Ricky Hatton has embraced the derogatory "Ricky Fatton" nickname and even wore a fat suit during his ringwalk at the Juan Lazcano fight to mock it and "the Ghost" was also used as a term of abuse by another fighter towards Kelly Pavlik and then Kelly turned it positive and took it as his nickname.

That bring us onto major flop Audley Harrison. His team choose "A-Force" as his nickname (his team were also the root of trying to have the other nicknames removed here as well) but the majority of the fans rejected it and use other nicknames to describe him with the most common being "Fraudly" used in multiple sources such asSue Mott at The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Telegraph again, The Independent, SKY Sports, The Times Eastside Boxing.

I dont believe adding these nicknames breaches WP:BLP - BLP states that we should show Criticism and praise - this does, BLP states that we shouldnt take sides - if anything the articles on Harrison overemphasises the positives not the negatives. BLP states we shouldnt be give undue weight but representing a minority view as if it were the majority one - this doesnt - all the nicknames have multiple sources which back them up. On the undue issue I have this basic rule of thumb with regards the notability of a boxers nickname, it goes like this - if I saw it in the headline of an article would I know what boxer the article was going to be about. The ones added to the Harrison article pass that test in my opinion. Try these - "Fatton Flattened" - ?? "The Hitman is Mexicuted" - ?? "A-Farce fails again" - ??

Basically what I am saying is that boxers often have multiple nicknames and often have nicknames that they dont like but as long as they are commonly used and backed up by reliable sources then it should be shown in the infobox. I would also add that if there are multiple nicknames then if one is an official nickname then we should have (official) after that one. To do otherwise would be a breach of WP:NPOV remember Wikipedia is not censored.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have previously commented on this at the Audley Harrison page and see no reason to change my opinion as stated there. Boxers nicknames come from many different sources. Some are intended to flatter, others are derogatory and some well earned. Nikolai Valuev is well know to hate the nickname "The beast from the east" but it is a well recorded matter of fact that it has been used as his nickname by many sources. Likewise I am sure Audley doesn't like being called Fraudly, Audrey or A-Farce etc but they are well used and so should not be ignored. If they are well sourced they should be included in the info box and in the text where approriate. --LiamE (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My 2p. No limit on nicknames. Well sourced, verifiable content should not be disregarded due to artificial limits that have no basis in reason.

Positive nicknames – commercial, professional, used in fight promotional material, ring announcers, respected broadcasters, published media, etc. – should be included.

Negative/pejorative nicknames – used only where these are impeccably sourced and subject to any other relevant BLP considerations. Boxing is fairly unique in this respect in that a boxer such as Harrison can become better known for inability than capability and the usual use of nicknames becomes transposed to draw attention to the athlete’s failings. That’s fine so long as normal evidential rules for content are applied.Leaky Caldron 11:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as there are BLP issues to consider any perjorative nicknames must be VERY well sourced indeed but I can't see any reason to impose an arbitrary limit to the number of nicknames used in the infobox. --LiamE (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I see it there are two issues here - criteria for including nicknames in an article and criteria for including nicknames in an infobox. In the case of Audley Harrison, by far the most common nickname is his "official" one of "A-Force". The fact that he has received much criticism for his professional performances leading to a number of derogatory nicknames is, I believe, perfectly acceptable for inclusion in the article, with solid referencing, but including every nickname that's has ever been used in the infobox isn't sensible. Several boxers have had different primary nicknames during their career and these should all be in the infobox, whether the boxer likes those nicknames or not. Little-used nicknames/derogatory terms such as 'Audrey' for Audley Harrison and 'Rick Fatton' for Ricky Hatton have no place in the article let alone in the infobox, which should summarize the most important aspects of the article. I don't understand the obsession with piling all of these into an infobox.--Michig (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I think the only nickname worth including for Mike Tyson is "Iron Mike", and for Hatton "Hitman".--Michig (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Boxers, as well as other notable people in other fields, are given nicknames and aliases wether they like it or not. Take the legendary 1930s boxer from Cuba who goes by the name Kid Chocolate. That moniker is probably a reference to his color. Nevertheless, he never comment on it. True, some athletes may not like their nicknames. But if it's what they're well-known for, then mentioning them may be neccessary. FoxLad (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The names they're known by, yes. Other nicknames, barring widespread adoption, wouldn't apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is or isn't put into the article content, is irrelevant to me. My concern is the Infobox, which IMHO should be limited to 2-nicknames (preferably a positive & negative name). GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Putting in "a positive & negative name" doesn't help balance the box. If anything, it may be applying undue weight to the negative nickname. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

HTF, I agree. Most boxers dont have a "negative nickname" so it doesnt become are issue - many boxers like Bernard Hopkins (Borenard) and Floyd Mayweather (May-runner) get dubbed with those type of nicknames by opposing fighters "fans" - these rarely get mentioned outside boxing forums and have no place in an article. But these are different these are nicknames that are in common use and back up in multiple reliable sources - not only that but they appear in the headline of articles for the boxers - which to be proves that they are commonly used and recognised as legitimate nicknames. I consider that it would be therefore a breach of undue weight and neutrality to omit it.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the best I can offer. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox should only list the boxer's most recognisable nicknames. But I do agree that nicknames are crucial to the identification of a boxer. For instance many people just know James Braddock as The Cinderella Kid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The cinderella kid? I think you mean the cinderella man. In any case this name was only given to him after his comeback from obscurity and poverty. Previously he was known as Bulldog of Bergen, Pride of the Irish and Pride of New Jersey. Oh look, another guy with multiple nicknames. --LiamE (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just figured a 2-nickname limit (positive/negative) is a reasonable balance. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

.How many nicknames does a boxer normally have? Or any other sportsman for that matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For boxers, at least one (I believe). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KB, normally one, sometimes many. GD, limiting the number of nicknames to two is hopelessly flawed - if a boxer has 3 positive common nicknames would you not include all? I should remind people that this is a BLP discussion and editors should focus on the BLP issues, there is already concensus to include the nicknames at WP:BOXING so if there isnt a significant BLP issue then that concensus should be acknowledged.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2 nicknames is sufficiant IMHO & but, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The sourcing is the thing, though - "significant" coverage needs to be seen. As far as I can see "Fraudley" is well-known and well sourced including sources from outside the boxing world; the others do not appear to be as supportable as that one. Black Kite 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So, having just 'A-Force' & 'Fraudley' in the Infobox, would be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Others may obviously disagree! Black Kite 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the four - "Audrey", "Ordinary", "A-Farce" and "Fraudley" I would say that the latter two receive the the most amount of coverage.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• BLP articles need to be exceptionally well-sourced, and those sources must support the claim that a particular nickname is indeed widely used. If the boxing culture encourages nicknames to be used, it is likely that individual boxing writers might coin new nicknames in their work. Just because someone used a nickname (and therefore, a citation can be provided) doesn't mean it should appear in the article. (Should we add Boomer's nicknames to every athlete he mentions?) I think that might have been the case with "Audrey" and "Ordinary" in the original dispute. Yes, they can each be sourced, but perhaps not enough to assert common usage. I also think that an arbitrary limit of two nicknames—one "good" and one "bad"—is a misguided attempt at neutrality, and we also shouldn't be trying to mollify editors on both "sides". We're building a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia here. Looking at the sources provided by Vintagekits above, and googling for myself, my opinion is that "A-Force", "A-Farce", and "Fraudley" could all be sourced sufficiently to satisfy BLP concerns. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2-limit for the Infobox 'only'. The content is limitless. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why impose a limit on the infobox only? What difference does that make, if high-quality sources demonstrate widespread usage of three or more? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my choice. Though whatever's chosen, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing is a key factor here. It doesn't matter if the nicknames are derogatory, if they are widespread and notable enough to make it into reliable/third party sources, there is nothing besides bland moralism (or maybe fanatism for some of the more established boxers) preventing their inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not censored, they are not a BLP violation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, all of these nicknames are already in the body of the article, where they can be commented upon or rebutted as desired or required. This discussion is about whether it is correct to add them all to the infobox, a citation of some sort, can be found for all these nicknames, some of them are quite well reported and some of them are less well reported. In my personal opinion, it is undue weight to add them to the infobox, which is a place of high visibility in the article, imo, the infobox is only for the main most well know nickname and adding all of these nicknames to the infobox is totally excessive and gives undue weight to the lesser known names. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Caribbean H.Q. summed it up pretty well. I believe that only the nickname by which the boxer is most commonly known be placed in the infobox. All others may be posted within the article as long as those nicknames have really been used by the boxer himself or he is referred to as such by a verifiable relibale sources or sources and as such said sources must be cited. There are many websites out there whose writers may invent their own nicknames and as such should not be considered as reliable (example: Ringside Report). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the general consensus, folks? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My personal opinion on this is one nickname per boxer is more then enough and example of why this should be is on the article Nikolai Valuev there is 4 nicknames, clearly when he is introduced into the ring only one is read out, so that one should be used not the other 3. To sum up boxing articles on Wikipedia in my view should have 1 and only 1 nickname in the info box that being the most common name the boxer is known as, however multiple nicknames can be mentioned in the article itself.

Ϛŧēvěŋ^talk 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would say the general consensus here is reflective of the wikipeda norm as it is now, one nickname (the most common) in the infobox and any others if they are well used and citable in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I shant dispute it then. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus. There doesn't even appear to be a consensus on what the BLP issue is. Setting a limit on the number of nicknames in the boxer infobox is not a BLP issue and should be discussed elsewhere (ex. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear split in the Roman Polanski article among two well-defined groups:

• Biographical editors: Those who have contributed to his biography based on his primary areas of notability - director, producer, screenwriter, Academy Award winner, etc. They have included his personal life details about the Manson murders of his wife and his case of sexual assault. The editors have tried to maintain a rational balance with the primary emphasis on his professional achievements and his personal life legal issues in proportion to his life.

• Underminers: This comprises a new group of editors whose only edits have been since recent news events relating to his arrrest on 30-year-old sexual assault of a minor charges in the U.S. The primary characteristic of all those editors is that they have only focused on adding text and cites relating to his personal life sex-crime and have not contributed to this article before he was arrested. Some editors have only edited with multiple cites to overly expand details of the crimes. Some apparently became new Wiki Users just to focus and expand that area. A cursory review of edits to the category section would show how there seems to be a highly motivated group who feel that his sex-assault case should be the only one worth categorizing, and have even removed categories that are his primary professional areas of notability.

The most comical aspect of the edits are the ones where his "early life" section is put after his career, which is perverse to typical bios, one editor even saying "Chronological biographies are amateurish . . "

I think that a careful review of the article and the talk page will prove the points above. Simply looking at the talk page sections will prove the points. By allowing single-focus editors to pervert the bio of a famous professional film person and turn it into what amounts to a quasi-inquisition, the encyclopedic intentions of Wikipedia could be visibly undermined, even allowing future bio editors to use this bio as a precedent and negative model for other future bios that fall victim to unruly groups. I generally work on bios and I was shocked to see how a significant bio could potentially stain WP's goal of neutrality. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute, editors are split and discussions arise as is the way of the wikipedia working in a correct way, I fail to see what is the objective and purpose of opening this thread, I suggest that there is no issue at all that warrants opening this..possible future reference for all future bios, that is a bit carried away if you ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"A bit carried away" is when an editor writes "Stop edit warring about these cats, I will have the article locked" after a simple good faith, and fully discussed edit. You were asked to provide proof of your ealier reverts based on your statement that there was "consensus." You have ignored that simple request in favor of threats. That's a better definition of "carried away," IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is nothing that has any place here on this noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would say there are 3 (4 etc) groups ... Most sensible editors are staying out of the time-consuming cultural conflict (a. Put Polanski in prison for life vs b. Given all givens, this should be dropped.) Yes, there is more energy to "amp negative"/"denature positive" since arrest of Polanski, but page organization already reflected that before arrest. As has been mentioned, differences of opinion re structure are being discussed ... But, in the long run, there may well be need for threads on this noticeboard to resolve seemingly irreconcilable editorial differences on a clear policy basis (rather than druthers). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The actions of Wikiwatcher1 are simply outrageous. Wikiwatcher1 is a new contributor to the Polanski page and their only goal seem to be Tagging the article without specifics, and then asserting, that a large group of editors, are "underminers" Wikiwatcher1 has no specific contributions other to just assert bad faith upon other editors. Wikiwatcher1 then goes on to mock the entire article and any of the work that all the editors have done to this page. And to what end? What does Wikiwatcher1 want to do beside hurl mud at other editors? Its an open question. What do they want to have done?

[Edit to note: The above is the first bullet of a two-bullet comment by Tombaker321 (signed with one signature 03:17, 21 November 2009 further below, after 2nd [* *] bullet). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)]

Reply: In contrast to that, note one "new" User's very first Wikipedia contribution, which besides adding courtroom drama and wikilawyering, expresses an audacious disrespect for other editors to this article by claiming "bias" as part of his opening statement:

"It is a gross omission to the proper Wikipedia "persons" entry to not mention that Polanski had another relationship with an underage girl of just fifteen, . . . . the omission of the record under his personal life is egregious. . . . I urge you to create a factual record in Polanski Personal life that he simply had a sexual relationship with a 15 year old. . . . its a factual record that is currently omitted under his personal life. Since it is of a known nature and with a well known individual and has references. I urge the editors to correct the record. It commission conveys a bias. It is a factual record. See: Natasha Kinski" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You only intend with that remark, beyond not replying to the substance, is a just an attack impugning my character and competence. Raising a gross admission of a fact, is content focused, its not like your attack upon me. It has no place. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All of your statements are false, accusatory and defamatory: You wrote "The actions of Wikiwatcher1 are simply outrageous. . . . only goal seem to be Tagging . . . . has no specific contributions . . . . goes on to mock the entire article . . . . hurl mud at other editors." Do you think the editors reading your comments are idiots? And I don't think anyone besides you appreciates your boldings (aka "shouting"). --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying that all of anyone's statements are false, is rarely correct, its a gross over generalization. My remarks are concerned with what you are doing and writing. When you said there are comical edits, that is mocking. Before raising this noticeboard I do not believe you made any editorial contributions to the article. I may be wrong on that. You hurl mud, when you state the types of editors should not be allowed to work on articles because you think they challenge the integrity of WP. Bolding is not shouting, its used to emphasis. All caps is shouting, or at topic heading. It remains outrageous (not defamatory either) for you to assert there are two groups of editors. Biographical Editors, which presumably contains your personal viewpoint, and those contrary to your viewpoint that you cast off as "underminers". Putting up on a noticeboard, that their is a group of underminers, breaks WP decorum, asserts as fact an assumption of bad faith of other editors, and bypasses the normal talk channels of every article. You have charged me in no uncertain term as being an underminer, on this noticeboard, and I object. I think your methodology is counterproductive to the work and continued work of collaborating editors. Beyond me will you be creating a list of "underminers. If it is just me, believe me I stand behind my work and contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • They are not asking for anything specific to be done, both in NPOV they drove by and Tagged (which I have removed for cause, I will only do that once, be assured). I have read what Wikiwatcher1 has written here. It does not point to anything in the articles content that is improper or needs revising. As far as their "comical item of concern" there is an open question with voting on that very point. We were talking about it before they came to this board. Is it that Wikiwatcher1 just wants to short circuit the process? I don't know but in Wikiwatcher1 view of the world, there is their own view, and then everyone eles's whom they call underminers. This is the worst means, to open a dialogue, calling everyone as underminers, please. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not correct Tom. My initial "drive-by" to the article included relocating "Early years" before his career, for the reasons discussed. It was immediately reverted based on a claim of earlier "consensus." Another seemingly logical edit was to add categories for his areas of notability, and those were also immediately undone under claim of earlier "consensus." Those were clear, and so far undisputed improvements to the bio. In good faith, I requested proof of any earlier consensus from deleter and the request was ignored in favor of threats to "lock" the article if any more such edits were made. Assuming no consensus existed, I tried again to add correct categories. They were again reverted by another editor w/o clear reason. As a result, improvements to the article have seemingly been prevented ("locked out" might be a better word). True, like others to this article, I drove by. At least I didn't use a rented car. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of your first actions in talk, was tagging the NPOV flag, without giving reasons, and pointing to this Notice Board. I did not see you asking for help with the categories within the discussion page, but I believe that it would be an easy consensus to list out what categories to use, and then fix that, and remove changes. I don't see this list of categories as being appropriate being listed out by anyone. You have raised a NPOV dispute, editors in discussion are asking for what specific items you are referring to. Please give the editors what items you feel are Not NPOV. Myself and other editors are frustrated that you have not communicated what you should have done right from the start of the dispute. A dispute is not a forum for creating an entry, it is to address specific problem items of POV. Specific. Right now in discussion you are attacking specific editors, and casting a large net saying there is a "group of dissenters". Please stop impugning other editors integrity, just to attempt to further you position. Thank you --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I created a hotlink to early life, and put it right atop the Career section. This should solve the issue for both groupings of views. I broad overriding complete style revision to the entire article is out of scope of the NPOV, but is a topic of discussion. --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the NPOV tag that was placed on the article was removed with the following summary statement:

(Removing NPOV Tag. See: Talk "POV tag notice" Section for details. Briefly: Tag was without specifics, tagger did not respond to questions, Tag swiped entire article, Was left up as Driveby Shooting).

None of the comments justifying removal are true as there was plenty of talk and all questions were answered in depth. Such comments seem to go against WP:Civil standards so I would like some 2nd opinions from uninvolved neutral editors. To date, there seem to be few, if any, comments from uninvolved editors on the talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikiwatcher did not have any contributions to Polanski article before November 19. They immediately raised a request for comment, posted to this notice board, and tagged the entire article with a NPOV dispute, using this noticeboard as its justification.

2. When challenged they did raise 4 issues. These items were not NPOV items but rather style and formatting concerns. Each was addressed.

3. A posting was made that he NPOV flag would be removed, and why. No responses.

4. The flag was removed for cause, and the reasons explained again.

5. Wikiwatcher1 has been a highly disruptive force to the Polanski article. They have asked me about personal information, and accused me of sockpuppetry, on my talk page. They posted those items they were asking me on another editors talk page.

6. As reflected here, Wikiwatcher has direction, and no ears to other editors. Its there way or they actively label editors as dissenters. Labeling a group of editors as "underminers" break the basic assumption of good faith.

7. Wikiwatcher is now engaged it 3RR and edit warring.

8. Wikiwatcher1 has now suggested the entire entry is removed.

9. To achieve the goals of removing content, wikiwatcher1 maintains that sections should only be allowed to be the a percentage of other categories.

10. Wikiwatcher is primarily concerned with Hollywood entries. There desired goals seem to be of a fan of the arts, and believe that anyone who wants to properly show the effects of Polanski's anal rape of 13 year old child, who was drugged, and repeatedly protested, is an underminer. The entry itself is very gentile to Polanski's actions as a predatory pedophile (in fact through talk before Wikiwatcher showed up we agreed to not call him a pedophile. Wikiwatcher1 seemingly want it all explained off.

11. Wikiwatcher is talk is asserting that groups of editors are "underminers" as they state here again. This is discouraging editors to contribute. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a good chance that you won't get a neutral party to solve this for you, so you work it out amongst yourselves. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)